Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

MIDLAND METRO BILL (By Order)

Read the Third time, and passed.

KING'S CROSS RAILWAYS BILL (By Order)

BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL (By Order)

Orders for consideration, as amended, read.

To be considered on Thursday 11 July.

LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT (PENALTY FARES) BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Tuesday 9 July at Seven o'clock.

EAST COAST MAIN LINE (SAFETY) BILL (By Order)

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [13 May], That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Debate further adjourned till Thursday 11 July.

Mr. Speaker: As the next two Bills have blocking motions, with the leave of the House I shall put them together.

BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 3) BILL [Lords] (By Order)

COMMERCIAL AND PRIVATE BANK BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Thursday 11 July

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

Television Licences

Mr. Skinner: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has to introduce a progressive method of charging for television licences.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peter Lloyd): We have no proposals to change the present methods of charging for television licences.

Mr. Skinner: The Government and the Prime Minister reckon to believe in a classless society—right? Yet some pensioners on one side of the street get free TV licences while some on the other side do not and some pensioners in warden accommodation get free licences while some in other warden accommodation do not. A rich pensioner living in The Savoy hotel gets a licence free, so I do not want the Minister to give me any of that crap about—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not an unparliamentary word, but it is distasteful.

Mr. Skinner: So I do not want any of that crap coming from the Government. If the Minister says to me, "Where is the money to come from?" I say, "Tax the Queen."

Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman makes his usual point, but in slightly different words. As he well knows, the Government believe that the right way to help pensioners is through the social security system, not by complicated and bureaucratic adjustments to the licence fee. That is why pensioner rates for those on income support were increased by an additional £200 million in 1989 and a further £80 million earlier this year, over and above the increase in inflation.

Mr. Holt: Does my hon. Friend believe that we in the Conservative group of northern Members are getting good value for their television licences when they have been trying for months to get an appointment with the direct or general of the BBC, who finds himself too busy to meet us?

Mr. Lloyd: I do not believe that that point has any relevance to the question, unless it involves the collection of the concessionary licence fee. If so, that is entirely a matter for the BBC and I am sure that its management will see this exchange in Hansard.

Mr. Battle: Does the Minister accept that the rules on concessionary television licences seem to be arbitrary and a shambles because pensioners in identical housing and income circumstances, living next door to each other, may find that one has a concessionary licence and the other does not? They find that an unfair rule. When will the Government sort out the shambles?

Mr. Lloyd: The Government have sorted out the rules, which are crystal clear. If the hon. Gentleman read through them, he would find them easy to follow. The rules are that pensioners of more than 60 years of age in local


authority or housing association homes with their own secure border with a warden on the premises for more than 30 hours a week qualify.

Juvenile Crime

Mr. Anthony Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures his Department is currently taking to encourage greater respect for the law in young people and to reduce juvenile crime.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): In addition to the widely welcomed Criminal Justice Bill, we are funding projects to tackle offending by young people through the probation service and the safer cities progamme, as well as encouraging junior crime prevention panels.

Mr. Coombs: I welcome those initiatives, but is my right hon. Friend aware of the overwhelming conclusions of the conference set up this week by the Institute of Economic Affairs and attended by Professor Halsey, one of my right hon. Friend's constituents, which links juvenile crime and delinquency with irresponsible parenting and the instability of families? Does he agree that the time is right for an initiative from Government for a code of parenting, which will not only point out to parents their rights and responsibilities, but give practical ideas on how to fulfil them?

Mr. Patten: I am delighted to hear of the late conversion to common sense of my distinguished constituent, Professor Halsey, for long a socialist guru in these matters. What my hon. Friend has said deserves the closest attention. Our most important job is to attempt to steer young people away from the temptation of crime in the first place. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recently met the Secretaries of State for the Environment, for Health and for Education and Science to discuss exactly the sort of issue to which my hon. Friend referred. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary hopes to make an announcement about this quite soon.

Sir Patrick Duffy: Does the Minister agree that for a depressingly increasing number of ever-younger people the first activity that puts them outside the law is under-age drinking?

Mr. Patten: It is one of the activities that do. Thieving by those under the age of criminal consent—nine—is another. In the last year for which figures are available 8,000 such acts were committed by those under the age of criminal consent.
I always listen with care to the hon. Gentleman. I would add to his analysis only the fact that the roots of the process of stopping young people turning to crime are to be found in two places: the family and schools.

Mr. Shersby: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the most effective ways of preventing juvenile crime is for local authorities to provide adequate secure accommodation? Is he aware that one of the principal reasons why so many young people are able to re-offend is that they quickly abscond from their accommodation and then commit the same crimes again and again? Will he discuss these matters with the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Health?

Mr. Patten: We are doing that at the moment. I agree that in some parts of the county local authorities are, unfortunately, not keen on providing secure accommodation and although I think that some social workers are too often and too freely criticised, some of them, alas, in some parts of the country, are refusing their duty to keep young people under close surveillance. That in turn sometimes contributes to their going out and offending and then ending up in a real prison—and that is a mistake.

Mr. Winnick: Would not it encourage young people as well as others to respect the law if a notorous fascist agitator such as Le Pen was kept out of Britain? Why is that poisonous man being allowed in?

Mr. Speaker: Order. He is not a juvenile, so the point does not seem to arise.

Immigration

Mr. Janman: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any proposals to repeal the primary purpose rule; and if he will make a statement.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Kenneth Baker): I have no plans to repeal the primary purpose rule, which I regard as an important safeguard against abuse.

Mr. Janman: My right hon. Friend will be aware that if the Labour party was elected to govern this country it would do exactly what he has said that he will not do. Does he agree that if the primary purpose rule were abolished that would result in a massive increase in secondary immgration to this country which the British people would abhor? Does he agree that that would be disastrous?

Mr. Baker: The primary purpose test prevents abuse by those prepared to enter into marriage solely to settle in the United Kingdom. It continues to be our policy that genuine spouses should be allowed to join their partners in this country, but any objective person knows that marriage can be and sometimes is exploited as a route to settlement in the United Kingdom and that there must be some protective rules. We intend to retain them.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's statement that genuine cases will still be considered. Does he accept that those who abuse the rules and who, by playing the system, are allowed to remain in this country damage the cause of people who have genuine reasons for coming and who do not know how to get in?

Mr. Baker: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Officers in my immigration service try to seek out those who abuse the rules who often, by so doing, keep others out. I remind the hon. Gentleman that about 27,000 spouses are allowed in each year, 7,000 of them from the Indian sub-continent, and that 2,500 are ejected. The rule by no means relates only to the Indian sub-continent. For example, it also applies to mail order brides from Thailand and the Philippines.

Mr. Budgen: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that any controls on immigration are bound to be resented by those who fall on the wrong side of them? None the less, strict controls are necessary so that the indigenous population is not subjected to massive new immigration. That is the precondition for good race relations.

Mr. Baker: My hon. Friend has put it very well. The rule is an important safeguard against abuse by those who are prepared to consider marriage as a device for securing admittance. My hon. Friend may recall that when a Labour Government were elected in 1974 they abolished the restrictions on spouses, but three years later they were so concerned about the numbers coming in that they introduced the marriage of convenience test, which is the forerunner of the primary purpose rule. I am disappointed that Labour now wishes to repeal that rule.

Mr. Darling: Does the Home Secretary accept that, while we must guard against abuses, it is absurd that a French citizen can enter this country with his non-EC spouse and their dependants under the age of 21 whereas a British citizen cannot marry a non-EC spouse without having to prove a negative under the primary purpose rule? Does not that absurdity merit some revision so that at least a British citizen and a French citizen are placed on an equal footing in this country?

Mr. Baker: That example does not lead me to the position of the hon. Gentleman's party—that one should scrap the primary purpose rule. If that was done, I am sure that marriage would be exploited, not only by people from the Indian sub-continent but by people in other parts of the world. It is prudent to retain the rule.

Prisons (Staffing)

Mr. Hinchliffe: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on staffing levels in prisons.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): At the beginning of June there were about 21,550 prison officers and just over 10,400 other staff in post in establishments. That represents 24 per cent. more prison officers and 22 per cent. more other staff than when "fresh start" was introduced in 1987.

Mr. Hinchliffe: Is the Minister aware that Wakefield prison is still 23 officers short of the figure agreed under "fresh start"? Does she agree that it is worrying that the governor of that prison has said that next year could he the prison service's Armageddon because of staffing problems in prisons such as Wakefield? Do we have to wait for another Strangeways before we get proper staffing?

Mrs. Rumbold: There are 4,200 more prison officers than there were before the introduction of "fresh start" in 1987. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will listen to the facts rather than to his local prison officers. Wakefield prison has had a drop of about 13 per cent. in its inmate population and an increase of about 18 per cent. in its prison officer population.

Mr. Moss: Following my right hon. Friend's recent announcement of her wish to see sports facilities at prisons made available for public use—a change of policy which I heartily welcome in connection with the new Whilemoor prison at March in my constituency—does she foresee any implications for changes in staffing levels to accommodate that new policy?

Mrs. Rumbold: My hon. Friend is referring to the custom of prisons allowing people from the community to

use their sports facilities. We welcome that and it is now common practice throughout the prison service. It has not necessitated more prison officers.

Mr. Sheerman: Does not the Minister realise that the director general of prisons action in effectively freezing staffing levels in April has led to deteriorating regimes in some prisons? The position is serious and the Government's mishandling of "fresh start" means that there are fewer officers on duty than there were before 1987. The Minister knows that there are deteriorating regimes in many of the prisons that are most likely to cause problems. In the spirit of Woolf, should not something be done to make sure that those regimes are improved rather than letting them go downhill rapidly? If action is not taken, there will be another crisis in British prisons.

Mrs. Rumbold: I remind the hon. Gentleman that, as I said earlier, we have 4,200 more prison officers in the system. Prison officers work far fewer hours than hitherto because of the introduction of "fresh start". It is an excellent scheme which has greatly benefited both prison officers and the prisons.
I remind the hon. Gentleman also that, in his report, Lord Justice Woolf suggested to the Prison Officers Association that it should work hard to implement his recommendations. That must include working with headquarters and management to ensure that the best possible regimes can be introduced in our prisons.

Sir John Wheeler: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there would be even more prison officers available for duty at no extra cost to the taxpayer if there was a significant reduction in sick leave? Will she look at that part of prisons department management and examine the causes of sick leave and the administration of it, for the obvious benefit of the service as well as that of the taxpayer?

Mrs. Rumbold: It is true, as my hon. Friend said, that sick leave causes pressure in prisons. It is something which we are investigating with prison officers and governors to ascertain what can be done to minimise it.

Independent Television Franchises

Mr. Grocott: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is planning any review of the new system of dealing with independent television franchise applications.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: No.

Mr. Grocott: Has the Minister not been advised by his officials—he certainly should have been—that it is the near-unanimous view of everyone who cares about broadcasting that the franchise allocation system is a complete and utter farce? Is he aware that one of the most damaging aspects of the system has been the loss of about 2,000 jobs—especially in the regions—and the loss of production facilities and skills, largely to London and the south-east, but, taken as a whole, throughout the industry? Surely the Minister owes it to us to undertake a thorough review of the system, to stop listening to advertisers and the Treasury and to start listening to viewers and programme-makers.

Mr. Lloyd: The proof of the tendering system for licences will be in the results of that process, which we have yet to see. I am encouraged that about 40 excellent


contestants have entered the ring. The hon. Gentleman's remarks about job losses in some independent television companies that are bidding should be set against the views of those who are responsible for the companies. If the hon. Gentleman spoke to them they would acknowledge that the time had come when it was necessary to run their operations more cost effectively. If the bidding system has helped to that end, that is one of its benefits.

Mrs. Currie: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is about time that we put all the television companies, including the BBC, on the same basis? Should not we consider in the next few years getting rid of the paraphernalia of the licensing system, detector vans and people being taken to court, along with all the other nonsenses that have been involved in raising finance for the BBC? Cannot the BBC stand on its own two feet along with all the other television companies?

Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend is well ahead of herself. We shall examine the structure of the BBC when the charter comes up for renewal in 1996. I accept, of course, that the way in which the BBC will be financed is a matter of intense debate and interest. If we abolish the licence fee, I do not know what the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) will ask about during Home Office Questions.

Mr. Corbett: Does not the Minister recognise the potential damage to the quality and diversity of programming that the loss of thousands of skilled staff jobs and production facilities in every region is likely to cause under the mad and blind auction system? In the run-up to the new Channel 3, will he respond to a plea from the television companies to reconsider the Treasury take, which, under the levy system, is being unfairly inflated because of a decline in advertising? There are dire warnings about the inflated take jeopardising the ability of the companies to deliver on their programme promises.

Mr. Lloyd: On the contrary, the process of tendering ensures that each contestant company has to show that it has the resources, the management skills and the capacity to produce the programmes that it says will be produced so as to cross the quality threshold. The system underpins what the hon. Gentleman wishes to ensure.

Mr. John Greenway: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is concern within ITV that some franchise applicants are still actively seeking financial backing for their bids and are now free to show the programme proposals of their competitors? Does not that undermine the integrity of the bidding process? Will he confirm again to the House this afternoon that the intention of the legislation was that applicants should have their programme proposals and business plans, soundly backed with finance, already in place when their applications were submitted?

Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Act requires bidders to show that they can carry out what they say they will do. Whether any additional piece of information is acceptable at a later date is entirely a matter for the Independent Television Commission, but I am sure that it will read what my hon. Friend has said about the matter and take note of it.

Phone Tapping

Mr. McFall: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many telephone lines on the same number an interception can be made when he authorises a warrant under the Interception of Communications Act 1985.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: The scope of warrants issued under the Interception of Communications Act 1985 is governed by section 3 of that Act. It does not specify the number of lines on the same telephone number which may be the subject of a warrant.

Mr. McFall: How many phone taps did the Home Secretary authorise last year? Does he agree that a court warrant should be obtained before each phone is tapped? Will he undertake to have a Select Committee consider the issue of phone tapping in general?

Mr. Baker: The figures are announced in the annex to the 1990 report of the Interception Commissioner which was published earlier this year. Some 515 warrants were in force on 31 December 1990 or issued during the course of the year and 68 were issued on the authority of the Secretary of State for Scotland. The Act requires that I issue a warrant only in particular well-defined circumstances and the use of that power is subject to review by the Interception Commissioner, who can look into the circumstances of each individual case. His report is published and is a public document, as this one was, and that is an appropriate and sensible method of regulation.

Shops (Unauthorised Occupation)

Mr. Hannam: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to give local authorities greater powers to deal with unauthorised occupation of high street properties.

Mr. John Patten: The unauthorised occupation of any property is primarily a matter for the owner or lawful occupier of that property. I would be a bit cautious about giving local authorities greater power to deal with other people's property. But shop squatters who break the criminal law can be dealt with. I know that this is a matter of great concern to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Hannam: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the incidence of empty high street shops being occupied by unlawful traders is on the increase and that, as things stand, neither the local authority nor the police can evict them? It takes weeks and months to get hold of the absentee landlord in order to obtain a court action. Should not the Government do as they did with the hippy convoys some time ago and bring those squatters within the criminal law?

Mr. Patten: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has recently issued guidance about section 39 of the Public Order Act 1986 concerning hippy convoys and others, and that has been widely welcomed. Those who squat in shops, use electricity, trade falsely and perhaps sell without declaring their VAT returns can be prosecuted under the criminal law. I encourage local authorities and owners of vacant property to use the expedited process through the county court which should make it possible to have squatters removed within about seven or eight days.

Dame Jill Knight: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is not just in the high streets where protection is needed from squatters? Does he recall the case of my constituent, Dr. Adam Fraise, who has had to spend some £4,000, including paying a large gas bill incurred by the squatters, to get his own home back? Does he agree that that is grossly unjust? My right hon. Friend told me that the Government were considering making unauthorised entry of a person's private home a criminal offence. When will he stop considering it and act?

Mr. Patten: I always take very seriously any injunction from my hon. Friend to act, as she knows. I know also how seriously she and my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) view that issue. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department is conducting a review, and he hopes to make an announcement as soon as possible.

Naturalisation

Mr. Evennett: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for naturalisation are currently being processed; and what is the average time taken.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: At 24 June 1991, there were 68,315 applications for citizenship outstanding. The average processing times for those certificates issued in May were 34 months for certificates of naturalisation, and 26 months for certificates of registration.

Mr. Evennett: The delays that my hon. Friend's reply reveal are naturally a matter of considerable distress and disappointment to applicants. When does my hon. Friend expect the process to be speeded up and the backlog to be cleared?

Mr. Lloyd: The process is speeding up, and the average waiting time has started to fall. In April, it was 36 weeks—

Mr. Corbett: Thirty six months.

Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman is right—36 months. I expect the downward trend to continue—until, I hope, it is a matter of weeks. We are seeing the benefit of moving the nationality department to Liverpool, as the Government would like to create employment there. The staff have taken over the work quickly and effectively, and I believe that the waiting time will fall rapidly over the coming months—and weeks.

Mr. Vaz: The Minister might think that it is an amusing problem, but it is disgraceful that the waiting time has escalated. The Minister will know that the Select Committee on Home Affairs published a report last year that described a delay of 27 months as indefensible. The Minister will know also that I have reported him to the parliamentary commissioner over the delays in his Department. Does not the Minister realise that if it was any other Department, he would have been sacked by now? When will the Minister make available the resources necessary to clear the backlog immediately?

Mr. Lloyd: Of course I know that the hon. Gentleman has said those things, because he said them to me several times. I know also that the hon. Gentleman knows very well the reason for the backlog. In 1987, applications

equivalent to six years' work were received. More than half of them came from applicants who had been in this country since 1973, and who therefore could have registered in any of those 14 years. Although the waiting list is being rapidly reduced, the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that those applying for citizenship are already resident in this country and that there is no doubt of their right to be here—so the inconvenience caused to most of them is small, if real.

Policemen

Mr. David Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many policemen there were in post in 1979 and in 1990.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: On 31 December 1979, there were 113,309 police officers, which increased to 127,090 on 31 December 1990—a gain during those years of 13,781.

Mr. Evans: Does not my right hon. Friend's reply show that ours is the party of law and order? Is that not in stark contrast to the lot opposite, who would not condemn brutality in the 1984 miners' strike or on the Wapping picket line, or those Labour Members who refuse to pay their community charge? Is it not a fact that the Leader of the Opposition, who once embroiled himself in a fight outside his house, will, after the next general election, land flat on his back—as he did then, in a prickly hedge?

Mr. Baker: I am astonished at my hon. Friend's moderation in contemplating Labour's record. When we came to office in 1979, we found a police force that was undervalued, under strength, under-resourced, and underfunded. During the last 12 years, we have made it our first priority. There has been an increase in expenditure of 50 per cent., in real terms. As the shadow spokesman is not in his place today—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] It may be that he is bolstering up the Labour party in Liverpool. Whoever is in charge, perhaps he could get up and tell us how many more police officers Labour would recruit if, by any chance, Labour wins the next election.

Mr. Rees: If the present Home Secretary is so pleased about law and order, will he consider the fact that in 1979 the Conservative manifesto promised that the crime rate would fall, and that it would go on falling, but that it has gone up and up since then?

Mr. Baker: The crime rate would be even higher if we had not given high priority to law and order. Not only have we increased the size of the police force but we have increased the level of sentencing very substantially and we have brought in new crimes—[interruption.] Sorry, we have brought in new sentences. We have also brought in heavier sentences for very old crimes. For example, we introduced life sentences for people who are convicted of attempted rape. I can assure the House that if we had not supported the law and the courts in this way, the level of crime would be even higher.

Mr. Colin Shepherd: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in parallel with the very substantial and welcome increase in the number of police officers, there has been a very substantial increase in public confidence in those police officers and their professional ability? Will my right hon. Friend also bear in mind that the thin stretch of police


—and their apparent invisibility, sometimes, on the beat—is causing concern in both rural and town areas? Will he ask the chief constables to look carefully at their policies, especially with regard to civilianisation, so that we obtain the maximum possible profile of individual policemen in front of the citizens of this country?

Mr. Baker: As well as increasing the number of uniformed officers by 13,000, we have increased the civilian force supporting the police by 15,000. We have civilianised many jobs, which means that more uniformed officers, both men and women, are available for policing on the beat and for policing in the community. That is another very important priority, but I am still waiting to hear from the Labour party what its increase would be.

Mr. Sheerman: Apart from introducing new crimes, the Home Secretary has been a member of a Government who have seen astronomic increases in crime rates—up by another 17·6 per cent. this year, announced only last week. Can he estimate how many more duties have been imposed on the police since 1979? Is it not a fact that although there has been a net increase in the number of police, the number of police where the public want them—on the streets, on the beat—has declined? When will the Home Secretary start to back the police of this country and give them the resources that they deserve to fight crime?

Mr. Baker: When we came into office, the police force that we inherited was under strength, under-resourced and undervalued. I was waiting to hear about the Labour party's priority. It has priority for all sorts of expenditure. The Leader of the Opposition is giving priority to education and to pensioners. What priority does he intend to give to the police? His spokesman has just refused to give a pledge to increase the number of police, so the Leader of the Opposition will have the chance to do so later. He may like to give it.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that however many police men there are in post, they need the admirable support of men and women who are working as special constables and volunteers? Can he announce today that he is planning further measures to support the excellent work that our special constables do?

Mr. Baker: I can give that assurance. There are about 15,000 special constables in the United Kingdom. We are undertaking a recruitment campaign to increase that number to about 25,000. I am glad to say that that campaign is well under way. Many young people, both men and women, are coming forward to serve as specials. Many of them go on to become full-time police officers. They make a very valuable contribution to the policing of our country.

Mr. Maclennan: Against the background of inexorably rising crime, does the Home Secretary really believe that his inane partisan bellowing enhances the reputation of the Government on law and order?

Mr. Baker: The essential element in improving law and order in Britain is to support the forces of law and order: our courts and our police force. We have an impeccable record in that as we have increased expenditure by more than 50 per cent. in real terms and we are committed to increasing it again in the lifetime of the next Government.

Prison Population

Mr. Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were in prison at the most recent count.

Mrs. Rumbold: On 3 July there were 45,037 inmates in prison service establishments.

Mr. Knox: I welcome the decline in the prison population over the past two years, but does my right hon. Friend agree that there are still too many people who are kept unnecessarily in prison? Has she any plans further to reduce the numbers?

Mrs. Rumbold: My hon. Friend will be glad to know that when the Criminal Justice Bill, which is currently going through the House of Commons and the other place, becomes an Act, it will effectively take measures to reduce the numbers of people coming into our prisons. I agree with him that that will be most welcome.

Mr. Madden: Is the Minister aware that one of the people in prison today is Mr. Karamjit Singh Chahal who has been in Bedford prison since last August? Is she further aware that 59 Members of this House have supported early-day motion 828 which calls for his immediate release? Will she urge the Home Secretary to allow that man, who has lived in this country since 1974, the right to an independent appeal against the refusal to grant him political asylum, as he has extremely well-founded fears of persecution if he is forced to return to India?

Mrs. Rumbold: The hon. Gentleman knows that it is extremely difficult at the Dispatch Box to answer a question on a personal matter. However, I will take the matter back to the Home Office and I will write to the hon. Gentleman shortly.

Basildon Police

Mr. Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last met the chief constable of Essex to discuss police resources in Basildon.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: My right hon. Friend has not met the chief constable of Essex for that purpose. My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State intends to visit the Essex police on 27 November.

Mr. Amess: Is my hon. Friend aware that a new police station in Laindon in Basildon will be opened next week? That means that we now have three police stations, instead of the one that we had in 1983. Will my hon. Friend accept the gratitude of my constituency for making money available for the three police stations? Does he also agree with the chief constable that it is not simply a matter of numbers of police men employed, but rather a matter of how scarce resources are deployed?

Mr. Lloyd: It is always essential that resources are used sensibly. I am glad that the Essex police authority has used the resources with which it has been provided to such good, practical effect. It is to be congratulated.

Mr. Haynes: Is the Minister aware that his right hon. Friend, in the knock-about on police resources, should be ashamed of himself? When he meets the chief constable of Essex, if the chief constable asks for additional resources


for police officers in Basildon and in Essex as a whole, he will, I hope, not turn him down on funding, like he did in Nottinghamshire.

Mr. Lloyd: My right hon. Friend always listens carefully to all representations made from whichever police force, but he takes the advice of Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary to give the ranking order to the bids that are put in.

Crime Prevention

Mr. Knapman: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures the Government are using to engage further public support for crime prevention schemes.

Mr. John Patten: Encouraging the public to take an active part in helping to reduce crime is the main objective of the Government's crime prevention campaign, the most recent issue of which was crime prevention week. We shall be considering what further developments in the campaign are needed, but neighbourhood watch schemes are multiplying fast and numbers are now at record levels.
The safer cities programme will soon be up to its full complement of 20 projects, and other local projects are also being developed by Crime Concern, which receives a grant in aid from the Home Office.

Mr. Knapman: My right hon. Friend deserves the congratulations of the whole House on that excellent record. Is there any merit in handing over those excellent schemes to local authorities, and, in particular, will the schemes receive adequate support in areas still controlled by loony Labour councils?

Mr. Patten: I think that there is no merit at all in handing the schemes over to local authorities. Try telling the people of Lambeth or the people of Liverpool that there is. It is the same sort of ill-thought-out Labour idea that would put police forces under the control of regionally elected police authorities with complete political control. Such ill-thought-out ideas are the brainchildren of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), who described his attitude to politics in the arts pages of The Sunday Telegraph last Sunday:
I find the business of politics infinitely tedious.
Perhaps that is why the right hon. Gentleman has not bothered to turn up this afternoon.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 July.

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is good news that strikes are now at a 30-year low and that, except for a few wretchedly greedy people in privatised monopolies, most people are now accepting wage restraint? Would not all that be upset by a minimum wage policy, which the trade unions and the next Labour

Trade Minister have set and which would add two points to inflation and at least 600,000 to the unemployed? How can that be good for Britain?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. The recently announced record on strikes is excellent news, the figure having fallen to a very low level indeed. It is also extremely good news, particularly for those without jobs, that wage settlements are falling to a level that the economy is more able to bear. The economy could certainly not bear a minimum wage—not least in the west midlands, where, as the Reward Group pointed out just overnight, it would cost very many jobs right in my hon. Friend's own backyard.

Mr. Kinnock: When the Prime Minister supported the establishment of private water monopolies, did he realise that he was agreeing to the establishment of private monopolies that would turn out to be machines for printing money for their chairmen?

The Prime Minister: The share options to which I assume the right hon. Gentleman is referring—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]. If the right hon. Gentleman is really referring to salaries, I remind him that we have discussed that matter on more than one occasion and he knows very well that I disapprove of those salary increases, but it is not the policy of this Government to act to legislate upon everything with which we disagree, as would the Labour Government. That is the way to give maximum centralist control and that is why socialism is such an outdated philosophy.

Mr. Kinnock: Since privatisation, customers' bills have increased by an average of 30 per cent. and chairmen's salaries have gone up by 50, 70 and even 119 per cent. Against that background, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the conduct of the private monopolies amounts to a public scandal?

The Prime Minister: I am very happy to join debate with the right hon. Gentleman on utility prices. It was, after all, the last Labour Government who put up electricity prices by 2 per cent. every six weeks. Under this Government, electricity, gas and telecommunications prices have fallen.

Mr. Kinnock: The Prime Minister says that he condemns the huge salary increases. He does that in words, but, in practice, he actually condones them. If he says that he does not have the power to put right that which he says is wrong, why does not he get the power?

The Prime Minister: The difference between those of us who believe in a market economy and those who do not is that we recognise that it means giving people responsibility for their actions even if they exercise it in ways of which we do not approve. The right hon. Gentleman makes it clear once again that any prospect of a Labour Government means that they would seek to control the whole of the private sector centrally. We saw what happened when he did that last time and we know with his minimum wage policy what would happen again.

Sir Thomas Arnold: Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to re-emphasise the importance of compulsory competitive tendering for the provision of local services? Would not that be the best way of delivering that provision in Liverpool?

The Prime Minister: I entirely agree. I think that compulsory competitive tendering in Liverpool, Lambeth and elsewhere would be very much in the interests of the people in those areas. The difficulty with the Opposition is that they do not know whether they support competition or not. In a recent interview, the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said first: "I am against privatisation." Then, when he was asked why it was necessary in Liverpool, he said:
Because the Liverpool people deserve a proper service.
If it is right in Liverpool, it is right everywhere.

Mr. Patchett: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Patchett: After 12 years of this Government, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development reports today that Britain is at the bottom of the league for growth, employment and investment. Does the Prime Minister agree that if Britain were a football team, the manager would be sacked?

The Prime Minister: Let me say to the hon. Gentleman, even the legendary Bill Shankly would be proud of a record that had us top of the European growth league through the 1980s and that is where we will be in the 1990s.

Mr. Pawsey: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his excellent education speech yesterday? It underlines the difference between the achievements and intentions of this Government and the failures of the Opposition.

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We are very concerned about choice, diversity and standards. We have the policies to ensure that they improve.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Bennett: Does the Prime Minister recall that when the Labour Government introduced equal pay legislation in 1974 there were a large number of Jeremiahs in the Tory party who predicted that equal pay would decimate the catering and retail industries and cost about 1 million jobs? Will the Prime Minister confirm that that did not happen? On the basis of that evidence, and following his criticisms, why will the minimum wage produce the same problems? Might it not, like equal pay, simply produce social justice in this country?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman may be unwilling to take my views on a minimum wage, but he might consider the views of many external commentators, including yet another overnight—Phillips and Drew—which show that the first stage of Labour's policy would add 1 per cent. to the rate of inflation and destroy 400,000 jobs and that the second stage would add 2·5 per cent. to the rate of inflation and destroy 1·25 million jobs. Those are not my views, they are Phillips and Drew's. The hon. Gentleman might also ask the long list of Labour trade union leaders who also attacked the minimum wage policy.

Mr. Butcher: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the German secondary school system is still predominantly based on selection and that pupils are allocated, according to their ability, to technical schools, grammar schools or to high schools? At the heart of the system is the realschule or technical school. Does my right hon. Friend agree that in due course we, too, should have in every town in this country a state-funded technical school?

The Prime Minister: I certainly wish to see a very dramatic growth in the number of state-funded technical schools. There is no doubt—and it is most clearly illustrated by the demand from parents for places in them—that the city technology colleges have been an enormous success and will be a greater success in future. It is interesting that the Opposition deride a policy for which the parents vote with their feet.

Q4. Mr. Bill Michie: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Michie: When will the Prime Minister wake up to the reality that, without a strong manufacturing base, there is no way in which we can compete with our competitors abroad, which means that the economic decline will continue, bringing poverty, homelessness, joblessness and hopelessness? Will he accept that he has no idea about how to stop the rot, and will he go to the country while we still have a nation and stop us being a sitting duck for overseas predators?

The Prime Minister: Everyone seeks to improve the position of manufacturing industry. I shall tell the hon. Gentleman when manufacturing was in decline—it was when the Labour Government lost control of inflation.

Mr. Squire: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Squire: Will my right hon. Friend consider tightening the law to protect those hon. Members who might otherwise be intimidated by the press? I refer to the Liverpool Echo, which has tried to force the hon. Members for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) and for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Fields) to state which Labour party they are supporting in today's by-election in Walton.

The Prime Minister: That is certainly an ingenious proposition. I have been following the by-election in Liverpool with some interest. I was also interested in the answer given by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) when he was asked for whom he would vote. He replied
I am not prepared to answer … a ballot is a secret thing.
And so it is. If the Leader of the Opposition is serious about Militant, he should start by withdrawing the Whip from the Militant members on his own Back Benches.

Mr. Loyden: The Prime Minister may be aware—he should be aware—that the problems facing Liverpool are deeply rooted in the policies that have been pursued by the Tory Government for the past 11 years. Does he agree that it is a pity that the Tory party did not pay the same


attention to Liverpool that it has paid it during the past week or two when it took £62 million out of the coffers of the city of Liverpool, thus causing the problems that exist there today?

The Prime Minister: The problems of Liverpool over the past 11 years are certainly deeply rooted, but which party—perhaps I should say parties—have been in control of Liverpool for the past 11 years? Why is Liverpool such a unique shambles? It is because the Labour party, whether under Militant control or, as it now likes to claim, under moderate control, has made a complete shambles of the lives of the people who live in Liverpool.

Mr. David Nicholson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Nicholson: Given the tragic evidence this week of instability and uncertainty in eastern Europe and the continuing power of tyrants outside Europe, which is why Royal Marines from my constituency still remain in northern Iraq, will my right hon. Friend pledge that during the current reviews the Government will do all that they can to maintain the effectiveness and the morale of our armed services, which will ensure that the Conservative party can show strength on this issue, compared to the weakness of the Opposition parties?

The Prime Minister: I am entirely happy to give my hon. Friend that copper-bottomed assurance—and that applies both to conventional forces and conventional weapons, and to nuclear weapons. That is in sharp contrast to the Labour party with its policy of placing all Britain's nuclear capability into disarmament negotiations with the intention of eliminating it in concert with action taken by the super powers—in other words, Labour Members remain unilateral disarmers.

Mr. Bob Cryer: I wish that were true.

Mr. Ashdown: Is the Prime Minister concerned that even after a period of recovery—whenever that might come—unemployment is predicted to rise to 2·8 million, and stay there? Does he intend to do anything about that, or will he simply abandon the unemployed to pay with their jobs for his failure?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) spoke more effectively about Labour's defence policy than his Front Bench does.
The right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) well knows our concern about unemployment. He is aware of the mitigating measures that we have introduced, and he should be aware that the greatest single destroyer of jobs is inflation. We are getting on top of inflation and bringing it down, and I am not prepared to take short-term action that would cost jobs tomorrow. Our policy is to get inflation down to ensure that there is growth and also secure, sustainable, permanent jobs tomorrow in every sector of industry.

Business of the House

Dr. John Cunningham: Will the Leader of the House tell us the business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 8 JULY—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Road Traffic Bill.
Debate on the fourth report from the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) on computer services for Members on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
TUESDAY 9 JULY—Opposition day (17th allotted day). There will be a debate on an Opposition Motion entitled "Low Income and The Quality of Life".
Proceedings on the Arms Controls and Disarmament (Inspections) Bill [Lords].
Motion to establish a Select Committee on sittings of the House.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.
WEDNESDAY 10 JULY—Motion on the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Regulations.
Followed by motion on the Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order.
THURSDAY 11 JuLY—Proceedings on the British Railways Board (Finance) Bill.
FRIDAY 12 JULY—Debate on the United Kingdom environment on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
MONDAY 15 JULY—Progress on remaining stages of the Finance Bill.
The House will also wish to know that European Standing Committees will meet on Wednesday 10 July at 10.30 am to consider European Community documents as follows:

Committee A—Document No. 4717/91 relating to environmental labelling scheme.
Committee B—Document No. 9791/90 relating to energy efficiency requirements for hot water boilers.

[Wednesday 10 July

European Standing Committee A

Relevant European Community Document

4717/91 Ecological Labelling

Relevant Reports of European Legislation Committee HC 29-xv (1990–91) and HC 29-xxv (1990–91)

European Standing Committee B

Relevant European Community Document 9791/90 Efficiency of Hot-Water Boilers

Relevant Reports of European Legislation Committee HC 29-xiii (1990–91) and HC 29-xxvi (1990–91).]

Dr. Cunningham: Since summer has apparently belatedly arrived, can the Leader of the House at least give us one popular answer today and tell us whether he has decided when the House will rise for the summer recess? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I have instant popularity.
Can the Leader of the House confirm that, as a matter of policy, the Government have decided to stop publishing hospital waiting lists? Is not it strange that people can

obtain all the information that they want about how hospitals can opt out of the national health service, but apparently they are to be denied information about the length of the waiting lists that they and their families will have to endure before they can obtain what is often quite urgent treatment? Is not that simply another device to hide the embarrassment of Ministers about ever-lengthening waiting lists for treatment under the NHS? May we have a statement on that from the Secretary of State for Health?
Can the Leader of the House arrange a debate in Government time on the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development report that was published today? Is not it sad for our country that that report shows Britain at the bottom of the league for growth, investment and job creation? In addition, and even worse, it shows Britain to be the only country in the European Community in the grip of such a bitter and damaging recession. Is not that an awful indictment of 12 years of the Government's failure in economic and industrial policy? Is it not incumbent on the Government to arrange for the House to debate those issues before we rise for the summer recess?
When they created large private water monopolies—some of which are providing captive consumers with a declining quality of service—did Ministers intend the chairmen and chief executives of those private monopolies not only to enhance their salaries hugely at public expense, but, effectively, to plan to make themselves millionaires within four or five years by giving themselves grotesque share options for which consumers will have to pay? May we have a clear statement from the Government—rather than the prevarications that we have had from the Prime Minister—about whether that was indeed their intention and whether they intend to allow such a state of affairs to continue?

Mr. MacGregor: In answer to the hon. Gentleman's first question, I cannot tell hon. Members today when the House will rise for the summer recess, much as I would like to. We still have a great deal of business to complete; we must also see how many amendments to Bills with which we have already dealt are introduced from the other place. I hope, however, to be able to give some indication of the date in next week's business statement.
As for hospital waiting lists, the hon. Gentleman will know that we are to hold a debate on that very subject later today. Given that it is being discussed today—earlier even than next week—it would surely be appropriate for hon. Members to make their points at that stage. The hon. Gentleman will also know, however, that in the past 10 years the number of both in-patients and out-patients treated in our hospitals has risen substantially.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the OECD report. A number of the matters to which he referred could have been raised yesterday evening, when the House debated employment.

Dr. Cunningham: We want a debate in Government time, not Opposition time.

Mr. MacGregor: Yesterday's debate was in estimates day time. The hon. Gentleman has got it wrong again.
I suspect that it will also be possible to raise a number of those matters when we debate some parts—certainly Third Reading—of the Finance Bill.
As my hon. Friend the Prime Minister said a moment ago, the 1980s record shows that in many of those years this country was at the top of the European Community


growth league. Industrial investment has grown substantially in recent years. I am confident that, as our policies on inflation work through, we shall be able to achieve the same record in the 1990s.
As for the hon. Gentleman's last point, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister dealt with it very effectively just now. It is interesting to note, in this regard as in many others, the way in which the Opposition react the moment anything happens that they do not like. They have produced the same answer yet again: they want to introduce legislation to control, interfere and direct.

Dr. Cunningham: That is what Government legislation does.

Mr. MacGregor: If the hon. Gentleman is not talking about some form of interference, I do not understand the questions that he has been asking. The plain fact is that the Opposition's gut reaction is always to control, direct and interfere in industries that they do not really understand.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House faces the same difficulty as was experienced yesterday. Business questions are to be followed by an important statement, which will put considerable pressure on the debates on the steel industry and hospital waiting lists. I must therefore limit business questions; at 4.10, we shall move on to the statement on Hong Kong. I hope that we shall be able to spend half an hour on that before reaching the main debates. May I ask hon. Members who are not bursting to ask a business question to delay their questions until next week?

Sir Bernard Braine: In view of the current tragic events in Yugoslavia—the position may worsen, although we all hope that it will not—and the disturbing developments in the Soviet Union, notably the tragedy of the Baltic states, is not there a strong case for a debate on foreign affairs to be held before the House rises for the summer recess? Will my right hon. Friend consider that request?

Mr. MacGregor: I entirely understand my right hon. Friend's point, especially in view of the seriousness of the situation in Yugoslavia.
In view of the extreme pressures on our timetable, and the clear wish of hon. Members for the House to rise at a reasonable time so that they can be with their families, I do not think that a full day's debate will be possible. I can, however, give my right hon. Friend a clear undertaking. As he knows, my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary made a statement on Yugoslavia in the House yesterday. I am sure that he will want to ensure that the House is kept fully informed of developments, as appropriate.

Mr. James Wallace: As a former Minister of Agriculture, the Leader of the House will be well aware of the profound implications for British agriculture of the recent proposals of Commissioner MacSharry for reform of the common agricultural policy. Is there any way in which Members of the House could have details of those, and is there a proposal for a statement or debate on them before the recess?
Picking up on the point that the Leader of the House made on last night's debate on employment, the Official Report shows that the official Opposition spokesman, the

hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish), said that he would have liked to have told the House about the Labour party's policy but did not have time. Will the Leader of the House make time available? It would not take long.

Mr. MacGregor: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman's second point. It is significant that, on that issue and others, Labour Front-Bench Members somehow manage to run out of time when they reach the point of detailing some aspects of Labour's policies. There has been endless probing on one particular unemployment policy and that is the national minimum wage. There is clear concern in the House and the country about the damaging effects of that policy and we simply have not had answers about it.
On the hon. Gentleman's first point in relation to new proposals to reform the CAP, I have not yet seen details. There have been a number of leaks about what the proposals are likely to amount to. I shall certainly try to ensure that the House is informed of them when they are available. As the hon. Gentleman will know, there will be prolonged and detailed negotiations on the proposals and we need to consider when would be the most appropriate point for the House to express its views. The House should be in no doubt about the Government's view. Those aspects that we believe are not in the interests of the long-term competitiveness and viability of agriculture, and certainly not in the interests of British agriculture, will be strongly opposed by my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the defence White Paper is due to be published tomorrow. Although I understand that there cannot be a debate in the House next week or before the House rises, in view of the imminent butchery of the British Army, will he assure the House that when the matter is debated—after the recess—we shall be allowed a full two days' debate so that the whole House can let the Government know of its extreme reluctance to let those measures go through?

Mr. MacGregor: I do not think that the White Paper will be published tomorrow. However, in the light of all the changes that have taken place in the past year, the Army authorities are currently considering the proposals. My right hon. Friend will make a decision and, if appropriate, a statement on that matter before the House rises. As for the debate, we shall have to see what the overall timetable and programme look like.

Mr. David Winnick: Would it be possible for the Home Secretary to come to the House and make a statement as soon as possible on why it was decided to allow a meeting to take place today in London of right-wing extremists promoting racial hatred in defiance of existing legislation in Britain? Bearing in mind this island's position in the war against Nazism from 1939–45, why should a notorious fascist agitator like Le Pen, with all his poison, be allowed in?

Mr. MacGregor: If the published views of the person concerned are correct, our views and those of most people in this country are clear: we totally reject the views of Mr. Le Pen. However, to ban his entry would be an extreme step, given his position as an elected member of the European Parliament and the French National Assembly. There seems to be no evidence to justify exercising the powers to which the hon. Gentleman refers.

Rev. Ian Paisley: May I once again draw the attention of the Leader of the House to two early-day motions, Nos. 518 and 556—

Mr. Speaker: Only one, please.

Rev. Ian Paisley: No. 518 is signed by over 200 hon. Members and concerns the imprisonment of four former members of the Ulster Defence Regiment.
[That this House views with concern the recent Newsnight exposè of serious flaws in the evidence which led to the conviction of four members of the Ulster Defence Regiment; and calls upon the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to have the case referred to the Court of Appeal.]
Is he aware that new evidence has come to light, that the Secretary of State has had it presented to him, and that the police have now announced that they have referred the matter of police inquiries at the original trial to the Director of Public Prosecutions? Will he arrange for a statement or a debate on the issue in the House before the House rises, or are the four young men to languish in prison during the recess without having their cases reheard?

Mr. MacGregor: As I understand the position, the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary has been asked to conduct further inquiries into a number of matters in relation to that case—the process will inevitably take some time. I do not know whether it would be appropriate for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to make a statement at present. I am not sure what stage has been reached, but I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's point to the attention of my right hon. Friend. I should like to check, but it may be appropriate to raise the matter in the second of the debates on Wednesday.

Mr. Jim Sillars: How is it possible to justify setting up a Select Committee on sittings of the House for the convenience of 650 people down here, but not setting up a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, which is a necessity for 5 million people north of the border? Is the Leader of the House aware that we would like a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs so that we could bring the Prime Minister before it to be examined on a letter that he wrote on 4 June to the Dalzell shop stewards giving them support for investment, while simultaneously the Secretary of State for Scotland was sitting in Bob Scholey's office being told that Dalzell was to close? Was that duplicity or incompetence? Is not that precisely the sort of thing that we should examine?

Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman knows well the position on a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs and why it has not been possible to make progress in this Parliament. He also knows that the Scottish Grand Committee has met a number of times recently to consider many Scottish measures, and that steel issues are the subject of a debate this afternoon, so there are plenty of opportunities to debate those matters.
The hon. Gentleman referred to 650 Members here, including himself and colleagues from Scotland. I think that there is a strong desire in all parts of the House for a Select Committee to be established, start operating and have its first meeting before we rise for the summer recess so that much of the preparatory work can be done. That is why I propose that we should deal with that issue next week.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: I wonder whether the Leader of the House, as a Scotsman, will arrange for a debate on employment—not unemployment —in Scotland so that we can rejoice in the fact that there are tens of thousands more Scots employed in Scotland than there were when we came to office. They are doing a good job and making it a prosperous country—no thanks to the Labour party.

Mr. MacGregor: I agree with my hon. and learned Friend. What we have seen in Scotland is a successful illustration of the restructuring of an economy from old industries to new ones, with a substantial emphasis on new industries of the future. As for my hon. and learned Friend's concluding remarks, in Scotland as elsewhere policies such as the national minimum wage would undoubtedly retard that programme.

Mr. Jack Ashley: Is the Leader of the House aware that there is absolutely no reason for rejecting compensation for non-haemophiliacs who have been infected with HIV as a result of contaminated blood transfusions because they face exactly the same critical, fateful illness and suffer the same appalling consequences? As they are dying regularly, may we have an urgent debate on the matter next week?

Mr. MacGregor: No, I do not think that it will be possible to have a debate on that next week, but before long I shall arrange a debate in which many matters may be raised on the Floor of the House.

Mr. James Hill: Would my right hon. Friend kindly answer one question on Monday evening's business, the Road Traffic Bill? I understand that in the House of Lords a new clause has been introduced to the Bill which we shall be discussing on Monday evening. As my right hon. Friend will know, 192 Members of this House signed early-day motion 667, which called for the convictions of applicants for taxi drivers' licences to be examined beforehand.
[That this House notes with grave concern the findings of a survey by the National Association of Taxi and Private Hire Licensing and Enforcement Officers which revealed that in the 136 councils that replied 486 criminal records had actually been discovered in an 18 month period, none of which had initially been declared during the interviews which took place under the provisions of the Local Government ( Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 which required a district council not to grant a licence unless they are satisfied that the applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a taxi driver's licence; calls upon the Home Office, the Department of Transport and the Association of Chief Police Officers to co-operate in the release of past criminal records of all new applicants to the chairmen of district licensing committees in a confidential file, so as to prevent any recurrence of what occurred in Southampton where a licence was given to a convicted rapist; and calls for a similar system to be introduced as that practised in London where the Metropolitan Police have access to criminal records when determining applicants for Hackney carriage driver's licences to be expanded to all district councils in the United Kingdom.]
I congratulate the Government on that. I certainly look forward to Monday evening's debate in which, if I catch


Mr. Speaker's eye, I shall be delighted to take part. But is my right hon. Friend allowing enough time to discuss this praiseworthy Government move?

Mr. MacGregor: I hope that there will be time on Monday, because we shall take all the amendments then. As a result of the consultation promised when the Road Traffic Bill was considered in another place we shall introduce on Monday a new clause meeting the anxieties expressed in the early-day motion to which my hon. Friend referred. In doing so we are responding to pressure from colleagues in the House who have been making good points about the matter—not least my hon. Friend, who has raised it on many occasions on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Would the Leader of the House agree that, at a time of increasing recession and of small businesses going into bankruptcy, and at a time when, despite interest rates falling, bank rates charged to customers have not fallen, there should be a debate before the House rises for the summer on the actions of the four clearing banks as they affect small businesses and personal accounts? Is it not a disgrace that the banks seem to be increasing their profits while other people are being sent into bankruptcy and ruin?

Mr. MacGregor: As the hon. Gentleman knows, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has discussed these matters with the chairmen of the clearing banks and will no doubt come to a conclusion on those discussions. I do not know whether it would be appropriate to discuss this matter at length in the House given that we have a large number of other issues to deal with, but I think that there may be one or two occasions in the near future when it will be possible to raise these matters. The Government's interest and involvement in them is well known.

Mr. Jerry Wiggin: Could my right hon. Friend expand on the answer that he gave my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames)? When the White Paper is published, many Conservative Members will want crtically to examine these drastic proposals in considerable detail. Will my right hon. Friend consider—unusually—allowing three days for this important debate, preferably before the House rises at the end of this month? Will he confirm that no administrative decisions will be taken in the Ministry of Defence that will pre-empt the decision of the House on that White Paper?

Mr. MacGregor: There is a distinction between the White Paper, which is the usual document on defence, and the points to which my hon. Friend refers, which concern the reorganisation of the Army and the reduction in its numbers as a result of the very different situation in Europe. That change is also reflected in the considerable reductions in numbers in the armed forces of all the other NATO countries.
In due course we shall have the usual debate on the White Paper. I have noted my hon. Friend's point on what is a separate issue, but I cannot promise him a debate before the House rises, although I shall consider that. The timetable is extremely crowded already if we are to rise at a reasonable date before we get well into the holiday period.

Mr. Greville Janner: Should not there be an early debate on the criteria applied by the Home Office when deciding whether to permit the entry into this

country of people with criminal records—[Interruption.] The former Home Secretary should not groan: this is a real problem. Does the Leader of the House know that Mr. Le Pen was recently convicted of incitement to racial violence and fined the equivalent of £90,000 for that? I know that he will agree that this man's views are odious, but why will he not also agree—if Le Pen is not to be thrown out of this country, as he should be, and forcibly returned to France, whence he should never have come—that the sooner this man returns to France the sooner we can all rejoice—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This should be a question to the Leader of the House—

Mr. Janner: I asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he agreed with me that this man should be slung out—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is not a point for business questions.

Mr. MacGregor: I think that I have already dealt with the matter.

Mrs. Edwina Currie: Did the Leader of the House note that in the excellent debate on Europe in Government time last week 49 hon. Members put their names down to speak and only a handful of non-Privy Councillors were called? Given the considerable importance of the subject and the huge majority of 154 with which the House sent the Prime Minister to Luxembourg, which must have helped him in his negotiations, will the Leader of the House take soundings to see whether we can have more time, preferably a couple of days, so that the foot soldiers may have their say? That would help, as did last week's debate, to emphasise the emptiness of Labour's policies on Europe.

Mr. MacGregor: I wish that I could exercise what used to be my magical skills in fitting the enormous amount of business into the time available while at the same time taking account of the feelings of many hon. Members about House rising times. That was one of the problems that we faced in last week's debate on Europe in which many hon. Members wished to speak. The Select Committee on Procedure is currently considering whether the 10-minute limit on speeches could be extended. That would be one way of allowing more hon. Members to speak in debates. I gave evidence to the Committee yesterday and look forward to its report, which I hope will be published shortly. It is always difficult to judge how many days should be allowed for a debate. Sometimes a long period is allocated and there are not enough speakers to fill it. My hon. Friend was right to say that last week's debate showed the overwhelming support for the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary for the way in which they were conducting negotiations. A significant contribution to that debate was the excellent speech by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement next week by the Secretary of State for Health on the proposed closure of the baby unit at St. Luke's hospital in Bradford and on the £5,000 performance bonus to the manager of Bradford national health service trust for his performance in closing such facilities, cutting other services and sacking 300 people? Is it not outrageous and wrong that such an important facility as the baby unit, which serves a large


part of Bradford, South, should be in jeopardy as a result of the Government's policies being carried out by puppets on Bradford NHS trust?

Mr. MacGregor: Clearly, I am not in a position to comment on the hon. Gentleman's allegations, but I shall draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: In respect of the package of measures to facilitate our work in the context of the European Community, will the Leader of the House explain what has happened to the one portion to complete the package—the envelopes that we are supposed to use to write to designated institutions? They seem to have been delayed and I think that they were promised in early June.

Mr. MacGregor: There does seem to be some hold-up on that. I do not have an up-to-date report, but I shall look into the matter. What we have agreed to do is clear.

Mr. Max Madden: Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to make a statement before the recess on the progress of the GATT talks? Is he aware that the scars of recession are clearly seen in the textile industry? There has been a 14 per cent. reduction in employment in the wool textile sector and massive redundancies and short-time working in many areas, including Bradford. Employers, trade unions and the whole industry want a clear commitment that the multi-fibre arrangement will be extended to the end of next year. Will the Leader of the House arrange for that assurance to be given as soon as possible?

Mr. MacGregor: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have discussed progress on GATT on many occasions. It is clearly our desire to seek a successful outcome to the current talks. We are well aware of the textile industry's wish to minimise uncertainty and of the need to agree arrangements about the future of international trade in textiles before the current M FA expires this year. The hon. Gentleman will know, because he has spoken about it before, that the European Community has proposed an interim extension of the current multi-fibre arrangement to the end of 1992, which is what the hon. Gentleman seeks. 1 am sure he will agree that in the longer term a successful GATT settlement encompassing strengthened rules and disciplines will best serve the textile industry's interests. I am not sure whether it would be appropriate to go beyond that and arrange for a further statement before the House rises. I hope that the proposal for an interim extension reassures the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Conal Gregory: May we have a statement next week about the aims of the Government's citizens charter so that the House may clearly understand that the Government wish to restore responsibility to individuals? We may then compare that fact with the Labour spectacle of a comrades charter which would effectively return responsibility to the union barons.

Mr. MacGregor: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. When we announce the full charter, I think that the contrast will be clear. I cannot say now exactly when a statement will be made.

Mr. Harry Barnes: The current issue of "Population Trends" of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys shows that there are 1 million people missing from the electoral register in England, Scotland and Wales. Many of the missing people are 18-year-olds. It would be a disgrace to go into a general election without there being a full discussion about the democratic and constitutional implications of the loss of so many people from the electoral register. Numbers have fallen during the operation of the poll tax. I have asked the question for the past two weeks and I hope that the Leader of the House will not tell me to find other methods of raising the issue. Indeed, I have raised it incessantly over the past three years. It is time that the Government faced the issue.

Mr. MacGregor: I have nothing to add to what I said last week. I repeat that it is open to the hon. Gentleman to use the many opportunities that present themselves in this place outside Government time that enable hon. Members to raise issues that concern them. I think that he might look in that direction rather than to raise the matter again next week during business questions. If the hon. Gentleman raises the matter with me next week, I assure him that I shall give him the same reply.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: In view of the Irish triumph thus far announced in relation to the talks yesterday, will my right hon. Friend give an undertaking that there will be a statement about the better government of Northern Ireland soon, as Northern Ireland is a constitutional slum? At the very least, let us have a statement that the truly scandalous procedure of, for instance, reforming the criminal law in Northern Ireland by the procedure of Order in Council will be stopped and that the proper rights of the minorities in Northern Ireland are dealt with by using the procedures of this place in a proper and orderly way.

Mr. MacGregor: There are a number of occasions when Northern Ireland matters can be raised. Indeed, there will be opportunities to raise them next week. I shall discuss the matter that my hon. Friend has raised with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement to be made next week about the need for a public inquiry into the level of dioxin in milk in north Derbyshire and the Bolsover area? He promised last week to call upon the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to make a statement, but none has been forthcoming. I called for compensation for the farmers involved, who have suffered loss of livelihood, but the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has refused to allow it to be paid. Will the Leader of the House ask his right hon. Friend again to make a statement? Many in north Derbyshire are alarmed that two farms were involved and that 27 others were monitored, many of which had high dioxin levels as well.

Mr. MacGregor: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I gave a fairly full reply to his question last week. I shall take up the matter again with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

Sir Robert McCrindle: In view of the immense irritation of my constituents on being requested to pay an additional community charge for no


better reason than that some of their fellow community charge payers evaded paying the charge last year, will my right hon. Friend ensure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment at least makes a statement in the near future to reassure us that local authorities are not taking the easy way out and surcharging law-abiding citizens while failing to exercise all the freedoms that are open to them to take non-payers to court?

Mr. MacGregor: I do not think that it is necessary for my right hon. Friend to make a separate statement on that point because we agree with the point that my hon. Friend has made. All charge payers are under a legal duty to pay the community charge and local authorities have strong powers to enforce payment. It is for local authorities to make full use of those powers. We have on many occasions in the House condemned those who do not pay their community charge.

Sir Russell Johnston: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Was the hon. Gentleman present for the business statement?

Sir Russell Johnston: No, Sir.

Mr. Speaker: In that case, in fairness, because of the limit that I have imposed, I cannot call the hon. Gentleman.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: As we can find time next week to discuss such an esoteric yet mundane subject as boiler regulations from Europe, can we find a little time before the recess to talk about the domestic arrangements in this place, particularly the allocation of the new rooms which are coming on stream? If that is done in the usual way through the back door, by the old boy network or by Buggins' turn, a lot of boilers will be boiling over among my colleagues on the Conservative Benches.

Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend has made her heated views on the matter known. The boiler regulations are being debated not on the Floor of the House but in Committee and I suspect that it might be better if the issue that she raises was pursued in other ways than in a debate on the Floor of the House. However, I am sure that her point will have been noted.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will ensure that those hon. Members who have not been called this week will be called reasonably early at business questions next week.

Hong Kong

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on Hong Kong.
The British and Chinese Governments this morning issued a joint statement about the result of intensive discussions over the last few months on a new airport for Hong Kong. Sir Percy Cradock, the Prime Minister's personal adviser on foreign policy, visited Peking from 27 to 30 June for meetings with Chinese leaders and officials. Agreement was reached on the Hong Kong airport project, and the two sides initialled a Memorandum of Understanding. This will provide a firm basis for building a modern airport to serve the expanding needs of Hong Kong and the future special administrative region. The Chinese and British Governments confirm their wish to deepen their co-operation over Hong Kong within the framework of the joint declaration and their confidence in the future of the territory as an international economic, financial, and trading centre.
The statement was released this morning, because of the time difference with Hong Kong.
The text of the "Memorandum of Understanding concerning the Construction of the New Airport in Hong Kong and related Questions" has been placed in the Library of the House. The Chinese Government have invited the Prime Minister to visit China, and he looks forward to doing so soon, and to signing the understanding on that occasion. It will come into effect on signature. In the meantime, the Chinese Government have assured us that they will raise no objection to the Hong Kong Government proceeding with the most urgent work relating to the airport.
Much work remains to be done if we are to ensure a smooth transition in 1997 and to give the Hong Kong special administrative region the best possible basis for success after that. The Chinese Foreign Minister has agreed to the proposal which I made in April, that in future we should meet twice yearly to discuss Hong Kong and other questions. The meetings between the Governor and the senior Chinese official dealing with Hong Kong in Peking are also being put on a regular basis.
The conclusion of this understanding ends months of uncertainty about Hong Kong's airport project and settles an undoubtedly difficult problem in our relations with China. The Chinese Government have expressed in the clearest possible terms their support for the airport project and have undertaken to provide clear assurances to investors.
I am grateful for the invaluable advice which the Governor of Hong Kong and his advisers in the Executive Council have provided throughout the discussions. The Government believe that the outcome will be generally welcomed in the House, in Hong Kong and more widely. It should provide a fresh impetus to international confidence in the continuing success of Hong Kong.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: The officials concerned deserve credit for negotiating a useful agreement which removes doubt over a project which is of great importance to the future of Hong Kong. It is also right that there should be proper consultation on other


issues which genuinely straddle the remaining period of British sovereignty over Hong Kong and the period beyond transfer of sovereignty to China.
It is, however, important that the concept of straddling should not be stretched to cover all other issues relevant to, Hong Kong over the next six years. Can the Secretary of State assure the House that the agreement is the only one of its kind that has been made, or is under discussion, and that if other agreements are to be discussed, the House will be informed of them in advance?
Can the right hon. Gentleman also give an assurance that the appointment of judges to the Court of Appeal remains the sole prerogative of the United Kingdom Administration in Hong Kong? Will he further assure the House that a decision on the Bill of Rights and progress on democracy in Hong Kong will rest solely with the United Kingdom Government and the colonial administration?
It is right and sensible that the maximum possible cordial and constructive consultation should take place over Hong Kong with the Government of the People's Republic of China, but it is important to reassert—as the Government have constantly asserted—that until midnight on 30 June 1997 the sovereign power responsible for Hong Kong and its people will remain the United Kingdom Government, responsible to this Parliament.

Mr. Hurd: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's general tone. The Memorandum of Understanding, which is in the Library, sets out the total extent of our understanding with the Chinese Government in respect of the airport project. There are no secret annexes, papers, or agreements arising out of the airport negotiations.
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the joint declaration provides for a Joint Liaison Group, which exists to thrash out practical problems that arise from time to time. There will be continuing discussion in that group on the various matters, such as questions of land sales, that regularly come before it.
In April, I was trying—and I hope that this can be achieved—to push forward the impetus of that work, so that a backlog of unresolved matters does not pile up in the way that occurred recently.
As for judges, no changes are envisaged to previous practice, which will be maintained as in the joint declaration.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I apologise to the House for making a miscalculation over business questions, and ending them five minutes earlier than I stated that I would do. I will therefore give a free kick to those hon. Members who were not called during business questions, without any prejudice against them next Thursday.

Mr. Robert Adley: Is my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State aware that those who are concerned with the welfare of the people of Hong Kong will wholeheartedly welcome the ability of my right hon. Friend and his colleagues to negotiate a satisfactory agreement?
Does my right hon. Friend agree that projects that cross 1977 are clearly covered in the 1984 agreement, but that we would be well advised to ensure, in everyone's interests,

that where such projects are initiated there is the fullest consultation not only in Hong Kong but with the Chinese Government as well?
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best interests of the people of Hong Kong are served when there are good relations between the British Government and the Chinese Government? In that regard, will my right hon. Friend accept my assurance that those who are concerned about that aspect will wholly welcome the news that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is to visit China, and that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will have twice-yearly meetings with his counterpart?

Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I hope that we are back on course, in co-operation with China, in carrying out the joint declaration. It states that, in the second half of the period up to 1997, there will be a need for closer co-operation, which will be intensified during that period. At the same time, the joint declaration recognises—as the Chinese Government have publicly reaffirmed—that, until then, the Hong Kong Government retain the authority to administer Hong Kong effectively. Those are the two principles, and if right hon. and hon. Members study the Memorandum of Understanding, they will see that they are thoroughly carried through in what has been agreed.

Sir Russell Johnston: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that it is a pleasure to be in a position to congratulate the Government on the outcome of the negotiations, and also Sir Percy Cradock, who played an important part in those negotiations? Will he convey to the Prime Minister the fact that many people feel that, when he goes to China, it would be desirable that he should tell the Chinese Government that there is considerable unease in Hong Kong about the future of free expression post-1997 and that the remarkable "two systems in one country" experiment will not work unless it is genuinely applied?

Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. When my right hon. Friend goes to the far east, he will discuss a whole range of matters, including many international matters, that arise because China is a permanent member of the Security Council, as well as a main player in the Pacific and in Asia. It will be a wide-ranging set of discussions. The Prime Minister and the Chinese leaders will undoubtedly range over the whole question of Hong Kong and the crucial importance of maintaining in practice as well as in words the principle of "two systems in one country."

Sir Peter Blaker: When our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister visits China, may I express the hope that he will also visit Hong Kong? Such a visit would be extremely popular. My right hon. Friend and all the others concerned on the British side, including Sir Percy Cradock, deserve the greatest credit for their success in producing what appears to be a satisfactory outcome to this long-running problem. Is not the lesson of this story that patience and persistence are particularly important in discussions with the Government of China?

Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister certainly intends to visit Hong Kong when he visits the far east and Peking. I am grateful for the way in which the House has reacted so far to my announcement. There has been a bit of a


knee-jerk tendency—not in this House but elsewhere—to treat any kind of understanding and co-operation with China about Hong Kong as some form of surrender. No one who has followed these negotiations could say that that is the course which has been followed this time. We came quite near to the point when everybody knew that the airport project might have to be postponed. That was a statement of reality, but it seemed sensible—obviously to both sides—before that stage was reached to make a final effort to resolve the difficulties that had persisted. I am very glad that that has been done.

Dr. John Marek: Will the Foreign Secretary reflect on the fact that, although the announcement about the building of the airport is very welcome, it may have been bought at too high a price, in that the Chinese Government have not negotiated with or consulted the Government and, more importantly, the Legislative Council of Hong Kong? Does the Foreign Secretary agree that, if the joint declaration is to mean anything—that Hong Kong will have a large measure of autonomy—the Legislative Council of Hong Kong must be involved in these important negotiations? If he does, will he refer the matter to his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister so that, when he goes to China, he finds out whether consultation can take place between the special administrative region-to-be and the Poeple's Republic of China? That is the proper way to go forward.

Mr. Hurd: As regards the immediate agreement, I am glad to say that the members of the ExCo were fully consulted and fully agreed. The first reports coming in today of the public comments of the unofficial members of LegCo are overwhelmingly favourable, as are the comments from the business community. So far, so good. As the hon. Gentleman knows, in the autumn of this year Hong Kong will take a step forward, in the sense that 18 members of the Legislative Council will be directly elected by universal suffrage.
That arrangement had some critics. However, it will become increasingly realised, as it is understood, that renewal of whatever the right figures are for 1995 will go through in 1997 and will be respected by the Chinese Government and carried through, therefore, into the special administrative region government. Although that does not go as far as the hon. Gentleman would like, it will be a considerable change and one that looks a good deal more solid than it would have been if we had gone for a higher figure this year, which would probably have been swept away in the middle of the decade.

Sir John Farr: rose—

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Sir John Farr: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his successful efforts with the Chinese Government and may I especially direct my congratulations not only to him, but to all his staff who obviously worked so hard in such a persevering way with such a very difficult problem? Having said that, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he will be a realist and realise that there is still a chance that the Chinese Government may see matters in another way? At this time, after my right hon. Friend's successful negotiations so far, would it not be advisable, before the hand-over date, to bring in the United Nations to underwrite any agreement that has been reached?

Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is a great pleasure to see him back in the House and looking so well. We have conducted this matter in a thoroughly realistic spirit, and the negotiations have been long—perhaps for that reason. However, I am very satisfied with the ultimate result. I do not pretend to my hon. Friend—or to anyone else—that the agreement will ensure that there will be no more problems and anxieties between now and 1997, because the effort that has to be made to bring about two systems in one country is extraordinarily difficult. I am not sure that the formal involvement of the United Nations would be helpful, but everyone knows that the success of Hong Kong is due to its international character. Many people are keeping a close and helpful eye on how the arrangements fare.

Mr. Max Madden: Can the Foreign Secretary say when the new airport is expected to become operational'? Is he confident that British firms will gain a reasonable share of contracts for that giant project? Is he aware that the BBC has reported that there has been an agreement that a minimum level of reserves will be left in Hong Kong in 1997 under the agreement? Has there been any clarification of a recent report that a senior Chinese Government official said that the Chinese Government were not bound in any way by any agreements that have been made, including the Bill of Rights, and that, as far as the Chinese Government are concerned, 1997 is a clean slate? Has there been any urgent clarification of that worrying statement?

Mr. Hurd: Those were three very relevant questions. First, the Hong Kong Government can now go ahead with the first work on the airport. The full agreement comes into effect when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister signs it. The Hong Kong Government can go ahead with the immediately necessary work. I do not know exactly when the first runway will be operational. The original hope was that it would be operational before the transfer of power. That may still be so. However, those are now matters for the Hong Kong Government, and not for Her Majesty's Government. It is a fine project which has been carefully worked through, and it will be extremely impressive.
If the hon. Gentleman looks at the Memorandum of Understanding, he will see the undertaking:
On the basis of the above understandings the Hong Kong Government will plan its finances with the firm objective that the fiscal reserves on 30 June 1997 to be left for the use of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government will not be less than HK$25 billion. The present reserves are 72 billion Hong Kong dollars. It was thought by those who advised us that that was a reasonable undertaking.
The Chinese are, of course, bound by the joint declaration, and they have frequently emphasised that fact. In the future, they will be bound by the Basic Law. As regards human rights, they are bound by the undertakings that both those documents contain.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I will endeavour to call the hon. Members who are rising, provided that they ask brief questions. I should like to start the next debate at 4.45 pm at the latest, because there is great pressure to speak in it.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I call Mister—what does he call himself? Mr. Morris. I mean Mr. Norris.

Mr. Steve Norris: Not for the first time, Mr. Speaker, but never mind.
I add my congratulations to those which my right hon. Friend has already received, and congratulate his team, too. Does not my right hon. Friend agree that, especially for the business community, the airport project has long been the litmus test of the warmth of the relationship with the People's Republic of China in general, and especially after 1997, and that the agreement therefore bodes well for business confidence not only in the colony but here, because if British firms are up to the mettle, they may be able to participate closely in the airport and other projects?

Mr. Hurd: The point has been raised before, and I did not answer it when the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) raised it. It is important that there should be a level playing field and that those responsible for letting the contracts, who do not of course include Her Majesty's Government, should give a fair wind and equitable treatment to the bids put in by British contractors. I very much hope that British contractors and consultants will bestir themselves. They cannot expect business to be handed to them on a plate, and I hope that all those with influence in the matter will make sure that they are awake to the opportunities for British industry that this huge project affords.
What my hon. Friend said about the feelings of business men has been made clear to me many times over the months. They wanted an agreement, not just because of the importance of the airport but because, as my hon. Friend said, they saw it as a sign of whether or not there was good co-operation. But it did not seem to us that that feeling among the business community, which is entirely understandable, should make us short-circuit the negotiations or produce a result that would in some way weaken or reduce the authority of the Government of Hong Kong between now and the middle of 1997. That would have created new difficulties and anxieties in other parts of Hong Kong. We had to reconcile the two aims, and I think that we have now done so.

Mr. Roger Sims: My right hon. Friend will know that both Hong Kong and China have many friend on both sides of the House who will have been given great pleasure by his announcement. Does the agreement to which he referred also cover proposals for substantial increases in port facilities, which were an integral part of the original port and airport development strategy proposals? That is particularly important because Hong Kong is the gateway to south China and south China would benefit greatly from increased harbour facilities.
Does my right hon. Friend also agree—

Mr. Speaker: Order: I think that one question is enough on a day as busy as this.

Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend will see an annexe to the memorandum which sets out the core programme projects —the projects that are already agreed without the need for further consultation. Other projects that straddle 1997 will be subject to the kind of consultation mentioned in the memorandum but will then be for decision as the joint declaration provides.

Sir Richard Luce: I welcome most warmly the progress on the airport. May I congratulate my right hon. Friend and, through him, the Governor of Hong Kong, Sir David Wilson, on their robust leadership for the

people of Hong Kong? Does he agree that the most important way in which to secure the long-term future of Hong Kong is the proper, full and effective implementation of the 1984 joint declaration, which provides for the full preservation of the freedoms of the people of Hong Kong?

Mr. Hurd: I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend. I am very conscious of the fact that the Governor and his advisers, rather than the Government here, have been in the hot spot. It was very difficult to handle these matters successfully—with a free press, free communications and free debate in Hong Kong—but they have done so through difficult negotiations and I congratulate them.

Mr. Michael Colvin: Does my right hon. Friend acknowledge that in the current world recession, with civil aviation doing particularly badly, the one area of growth is still the far east, where Hong Kong provides a vital civil aviation hub, and that, in terms of business confidence for the future, the go-ahead for the airport was vital?
On the question of British contractors getting work, does my right hon. Friend acknowledge that there has been no shortage of British initiative in securing contracts to build the airport at Macau? I very much hope that British firms will be equally adventurous when it comes to securing contracts for the future building of Hong Kong's airport.

Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend puts it very well, and I entirely endorse what he says.

Sir Michael Neubert: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this very welcome settlement of the question of the new Hong Kong airport removes some significant obstacles to the development of our wider interests in the far east? As British Airways is keen to extend its service to Hong Kong and to Taiwan twice a week to compete with Cathay Pacific, KLM and with a subsidiary of Japanese Air Lines which already operate there, and as there is already contact between the Taiwanese and the Chinese, will my right hon. Friend facilitate our national flag carrier's application to operate there?

Mr. Hurd: I detect a difficulty in that question. I think that I had better not answer it off the cuff. Either I or my right hon. Friend will write to my hon. Friend.

Sir Giles Shaw: May I add to the congratulations on my right hon. Friend's achievement from patient diplomacy. Has there been a genuine change that leads him to believe that patience and diplomacy are now recognised by the other side as the proper way to proceed?

Mr. Hurd: This is an example of how patience overcomes obstacles. We can all draw lessons from the exchanges and difficulties and the way in which we have solved them.

Mr. Ian Taylor: As a member of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs when it reported on Hong Kong, I know exactly how important the project was, both politically and economically. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary deserves credit for the perseverance shown in ensuring that the deal is the right one. Will he also note that it was clearly shown in the joint declaration


—which I understand has the status of a treaty in the United Nations—that Britain has a responsibility to ensure that Hong Kong has economic prosperity and social stability by 1997, and that that means working in close co-operation with the Government of China to ensure that end? Is that now recognised by the Government of China, and do they recognise also their responsibilities to ensure that there is a stable economic system through 1997?

Mr. Hurd: I believe that those points are understood. We must now develop ways to intensify the co-operation. I believe that we now have a much better chance cif doing that without people feeling that in some way the authority of the Hong Kong Government between now and 1997 is being undermined.

Mr. George Walden: I hope that my right hon. Friend will not take it amiss if I say that, although I congratulate him on the achievement of this solution, one must say frankly that it is a deal that we would have preferred not to have been obliged to conclude. I believe that my right hon. Friend will agree that the House will inevitably face a conflict between Chinese power and British responsibility as 1997 approaches. I hope that he also agrees that the Chinese should not draw the conclusion from the agreement that they should seek to interfere further because that would damage the interests of Hong Kong and of mainland China.

Mr. Hurd: I do not think that they will draw that conclusion from the way the negotiations have progressed. We are faced with a huge project that required perhaps one quarter of its finance from private investment. It was simply a fact—we have to deal in facts—that that investment would not have been forthcoming unless there had been some Chinese acquiescence in the project. That is a fact. We have got more than some reluctant acquiescence: I would say that we have full-hearted approval of the project. Although it is certainly a deal, like most of these practical arrangements, it is a deal that is overwhelmingly in the interests of Hong Kong.

Sir John Wheeler: Will my right hon. Friend add my warm congratulations to the roll call of approval this afternoon? Does he accept that the agreement will do much to sustain the confidence of the people in the long-term future of Hong Kong, thus rooting them in their country and giving them the expectation of a reliable future?

Mr. Hurd: There will be prickly problems ahead, as my hon. Friend suggests. However, we can tackle them through the machinery now in place, which has been strengthened as a result of the Memorandum of Understanding. We can tackle them with a better chance than we had before of finding the right kind of answer.

Mr. Bowen Wells: I also congratulate my right hon. Friend on this understanding. What kind of an airport have we agreed to? Is it a much smaller airport? Does it have the port facilities, factory sites and highways that were originally envisaged? Did my right hon. Friend or anyone else consult the two legislative assemblies—the Executive Council and LegCo—on the issue before the understanding was reached?

Mr. Hurd: If my hon. Friend looks at the annexe to the Memorandum of Understanding, he will see the main projects of the core of the airport and that it is basically the project that was originally designed. It is a major airport and a major project, but the details and the decisions are not for the British Government; they are for the Hong Kong Government.
On my hon. Friend's second question, ExCo was fully consulted and unanimously approved. One cannot consult LegCo on confidential negotiations but, as I have said, it appeared from the tapes this morning that the initial reaction of Unofficial Members is favourable.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: In recognising the crucial importance of this agreement for confidence in Hong Kong and for the future economic growth of that area, does my right hon. Friend see that as further evidence of a greater identity of view and sense of co-operation between the permanent members of the Security Council —an identity of view that could be used to great effect in other parts of the world where there are regional problems, such as the middle east, the Horn of Africa and Cyprus?

Mr. Hurd: Like others, we have found that it is now much easier to discuss wider international matters with the Chinese Government than it used to be. There is plenty of scope for that—for example, the issue of arms control and the criteria for exports of weaponry are important subjects in which the Chinese have an important role to play.

Mr. John Browne: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you confirm that, in keeping with the fine traditions of this House, under which you have a tricorn hat, wig and gown, it is in order for me to wear a hat, provided that I remove it when addressing you? Will you also confirm that my wearing it will not in any way curtail the democratic voice in the House of the people of Winchester?

Mr. Speaker: Yes, that is the democratic right of the hon. Gentleman. It is a long tradition. In centuries past, hon. Members frequently wore hats. The trouble is that if an hon. Member wears a hat, it is difficult for me to recognise him [Laughter]. That is the problem.

BILL PRESENTED

BRITISH RAILWAYS BOARD (FINANCE)

Mr. Secretary Rifkind, supported by Mr. Secretary Hunt, Mr. Secretary Lilley, Mr. Secretary Lang, Mr. David Mellor and Mr. Roger Freeman, presented a Bill to alter the limits under section 42(6) of the Transport Act 1968 relating to the indebtedness of the British Railways Board and the limits on the amount of compensation payable in respect of certain public service obligations of the Board: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 207.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.).

COMPANIES HOUSE TRADING FUND

That the draft Companies House Trading Fund Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Patnicki.]

Question agreed to.

Estimates Day

[3RD ALLOTTED DAY]

ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES 1991–92

Class IV, Vote 1

[Relevant documents: The Second Report from the Trade and Industry Committee of Session 1990–91 on British Steel—Ravenscraig and Clydesdale ( House of Commons Paper No. 63), and the Government Reply contained in the Second Special Report from the Trade and Industry Committee of Session 1990–91 (House of Commons Paper No. 473 ).]

Steel Industry

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a further sum, not exceeding £81,404,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges that will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1992 for expenditure by the Department of Trade and Industry on regional developments grants, regional selective assistance, selective assistance to individual industries and firms, UK contributions arising from its commitments under the International Natural Rubber Agreement, a strategic mineral stockpile, support for the film, aerospace and shipbuilding industries, assistance to redundant steel workers, and other payments.—[Mr. Allan Stewart.]

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient also to discuss the second estimate on the Order Paper—class XV, vote 3—
That a further sum, not exceeding £421,137,000, and including a Supplementary Sum of £161,194,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges that will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1992 for expenditure by the Scottish Office Industry Department on Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise; on regional enterprise grants; on technical and vocational education; on the promotion of tourism; on financial assistance to the electricity industry and local enterprise companies; on residual expenditure for the Scottish Development Agency and the Highlands and Islands Development Board; on roads and certain associated services, including the acquisition of land, lighting, road safety and related services; on assistance to local transport; on support for transport services in the highlands and islands; on piers and harbours, and on certain other transport services and grants; and on other sundry services in connection with trade and industry, etc.

Mr. Jim Sillars: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you tell us whether the Secretary of State for Scotland will be present for the debate? The right hon. Gentleman has figured prominently north of the border on the steel debate in Scotland, not only in the Scottish press but also on Scottish television, which, unfortunately, is not beamed into your office. He has been at the centre of Government activity. Can you tell us whether he is at a garden party at Holyrood house this afternoon, or is likely to be able to attend the debate in which it is extremely important that he participates?
As you know, Mr. Speaker, from my intervention during business questions, we do not have a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, which means that Scottish Members have only a limited ability rigorously to pursue and examine the Scottish Office and its performance. It would be a disgrace and an insult to the Scottish people if


the Secretary of State for Scotland was not present this afternoon to participate in the debate and to answer the highly pertinent questions that we want to put to him.

Mr. Speaker: I have responsibility for what happens in the Chamber, but it would be placing a heavy responsibility upon the Speaker if he had to know what right hon. and hon. Members do when they are outside the House. I have no idea where the Secretary of State is.

Sir Hector Monro: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not wrong for a party that operates by leaks and smears to criticise my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland who is carrying out the full responsibilities of that position by attending Her Majesty the Queen at Holyrood palace?

Mr. Speaker: I do not want to be drawn into that argument, but some functions are not by invitation, but by command.

Dr. Jeremy Bray: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is nothing more that I can say about the matter.

Dr. Bray: It was the responsibility of the Government to arrange the business for today, and they did so in the full knowledge that the Secretary of State for Scotland would not be present. Was it a ruse to excuse him from the debate?

Mr. Speaker: How on earth would I know something like that?

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: I am sure that the whole House hoped that the Chairman of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry—my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Warren)—could have been here today, as he chaired the Committee during its inquiry into the closure of the hot wide strip mill at Ravenscraig. Unfortunately, my hon. Friend has not been able to attend the House for a month because of ill health, although we hope that he will be back shortly. The members of the Committee called me to the Chair as acting Chairman in my hon. Friend's absence, and it is in that capacity that I sought to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker.
The history of the Select Committee's interest in the steel industry goes back to the original Nationalised Industries Committee, which used to take a great interest, on behalf of the House, in many factors—both internal as well as external—affecting the health of the steel industry in the United Kingdom. When the departmentally-related Select Committees were established in 1980 in their present form, the then nationalised British Steel fell within the remit of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry.
The industry does not function in unfettered competition; it is subject to the articles and supervision of the European Coal and Steel Community, which has its own competition regulations. Technically, therefore, the Directorate-General of the European Commission does not have formal jurisdiction over the steel industry within the EEC. It was necessary to mention that because I shall shortly be referring to a document that has emanated from the Directorate-General for Competition in the EEC.
With the worldwide collapse—not just in Europe and the United Kingdom—in demand for steel products of

every sort, the European Coal and Steel Community has made many provisions that differ from the strict competition requirements of the EEC, and require us to avoid gross over-capacity and to attempt to have, within the countries of the EEC, orderly industries rather than industries in competitive chaos.
On 16 May 1990, British Steel announced the planned closure of the hot wide strip mill at Ravenscraig, with the loss of 770 jobs. There was a further announcement on 8 November 1990 of plans to close the steel works and tube mill at Clydesdale early in 1991, with the loss of a further 1,200 jobs. It was in that context, rather than just as an inquiry that was not especially timely, that the Select Committee focused its attention not only on the internal position within British Steel—now, of course, in the private sector—as a whole, but on certain concentrated aspects.
The first was the effect on the local and more widespread economy of Scotland, in which the plant is located. For the very reason that was mentioned earlier—that there is no Select Committee considering Scottish affairs—the Trade and Industry Select Committee felt obliged to mount an inquiry into the consequences of the projected closure on the local and more widespread economy of Scotland—which, of course, is outside the fiduciary duties of the directors of British Steel, but is wholly within the remit of the Select Committee.
Secondly, we were concerned about the employment implications for those who had previously been employed in Ravenscraig and Clydesdale. That matter can fall within the fiduciary responsibilities of the directors of a public company. It is not a requirement, but modern company law enables it to do so. Therefore, it is not an irrelevant consideration either for the directors of British Steel or for the Select Committee.
We needed to examine the reasons why British Steel took that management decision and what alternative arrangements could have been made, given the market—as British Steel saw it—for the products produced both in Ravenscraig and Clydesdale and also in British Steel plants elsewhere in the United Kingdom. We were also concerned whether reduction in capacity at those plants in Scotland would produce a restriction in effective competition, which would enable British Steel to increase its prices in a way that it would not otherwise have been able to do. That is a fair statement of the framework in which the Committee conducted its investigations, which were not wholly located in Committee Room 15 at the Palace of Westminster.
The Committee visited not only Ravenscraig, but the British Steel site in south Wales which, in the plan given in evidence to the Committee by British Steel, was where it intended to concentrate production after the closure of Ravenscraig. We visited both sites, rather than simply taking verbal and written evidence at the House of Commons. Of course, it is often the case that the taking of evidence itself is an important service to the House of Commons, and the Select Committee on Procedure has often emphasised that. Sometimes, it is not the actual production of the report that is crucial, but the illumination of relevant factors through the taking of evidence in public—[Interruption.] Does my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) have a problem?

Mr. Michael Brown: I apologise to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: The collecting of written evidence, which is released both to the House and in the public sphere, is of great service to the House. I mention that because the hot wide strip mill at Ravenscraig was closed on 12 February 1991, whereas the Committee did not conclude its report until a week later, on 20 February. That was not due to any lassitude by the Committee, but because there was an exchange of correspondence with the EEC. We were awaiting evidence from that source, as well as taking evidence in the United Kingdom. We were not masters of our timetable.
The production of the report, although it came nine days after the actual closure, did not mean that the inquiry and the production of the report were a waste of time. They illuminated issues that were and are of great importance. I shall not attempt to summarise the entire report; I trust that hon. Members who are interested in the subject will have read it for themselves. I am glad to see that many hon. Members are present for this debate who were not members of the Select Committee.
The Procedure Committee, in its recent report on our Select Committees, emphasised that debates on Select Committee reports were not just events produced for the benefit of the members of the Select Committees concerned. The Committee reports to the House, and it is to enable the House to debate the issue constructively that is the prime service of the Select Committee.
Let me turn to the conclusions on page xvii—

Mr. Tom Clarke: Before he does so, will the hon. Gentleman note the comment in paragraph 20, on page ix—
The Clydesdale and Imperial Works have been losing money for the last six years"?
Special factors apply to Clydesdale; I am sure that my hon. Friends will mention them. It is not true, however, that Imperial—which is quite separate—was losing money. Is it not rather a pity that the report did not give the details?

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: That may well be a point that the hon. Gentleman will wish to develop if he catches your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I suspect that, in the time allocated for this debate—and there are two debates this afternoon—the House would not wish me to monopolise more than a comparatively limited part of it.
I want in particular to refer to No. 2 in our summary of recommendations, which states:
We recommend that the competition case on the closure of Ravenscraig should be further examined by the relevant authorities in the European Community.
We said that for a number of reasons, to some of which I have already alluded, because of the general supervision of the Competition Commission over the whole of productive industry. There are many other parts of productive industry in this country potentially affected by changes in the supply of steel which do not themselves come under the competition provisions of the European Coal and Steel Community. That is why we were interested in learning the views of the Competition Commission as well as those of the European Coal and Steel Community.
So was the Scottish Steel Campaign Trust, which wrote to the competition directorate of the European Commission. The Committee was sent a copy of the official reply from the Community, and it is to that that I now wish to refer. Before this debate, I sent the Clerk of

the House, for laying on the Table, copies of this correspondence, because it is never fair to the House just to quote selected portions of a document unless other hon. Members can have the opportunity of reading the whole of it for themselves.
The Competition Commission's initial paragraph makes clear its lack of actual jurisdiction. It says:
You will, of course, be aware that the Commission is under no legal obligation under the ECSC competition rules to state its position or to examine complaints such as the one you have made. Nevertheless in view of your members' responsibilities as public authorities and as representatives of the workers, the Commission is willing, as a matter of courtesy, to indicate how it sees the case. This letter deals with your complaint dated 26 October 1990 concerning the closure of the hot wide strip mill at British Steel's Ravenscraig works.
When we now come on to what was actually said in the letter—which extends to 59 paragraphs—there are, I think, five which draw together the strands of its conclusions. I start with paragraph 48, which states:
The complainant has alleged that the failure to make the mill available to competitors, or to mothball it until such time as the steelworks is closed and then to offer the entire package to a competitor, is an abuse of a dominant position. This could be true only in very exceptional circumstances if this was the only practicable way that a competitor could enter the market.
According to paragraph 49,
This is not so. Many competitors are already present in the United Kingdom either as direct sellers or as stockholders. These competitors can easily increase production or sales at any time. As they are already present on the market they face no barriers to entry.
That was the focus of the response from the Competition Commission on the question of whether British Steel should have offered the plant, which was redundant for its purposes, for sale to other competitors, and whether it was, in a sense, put in a position to manipulate market prices by its reduction in local capacity.
Paragraph 52 states:
The refusal by BS to offer the Ravenscraig mill for sale or to mothball it pending an offer to sell it with the steelworks is not therefore an abuse of dominant position.
Let me turn now to paragraph 59, the last paragraph before the conclusion, which says:
The complainants claim that the closure of the hot wide strip mill will inevitably lead to the closure of the remainder of the Ravenscraig complex and of the Dalzell plate mill. The Commission takes no view on this contention, but considers that even if this total closure comes about it is unlikely that there would be an infringement of the ECSC competition rules, and in particular of Article 66(7) ECSC, as BS is not dominant in the relevant market.
Lastly, the conclusion—paragraph 60—states:
The Commission regrets to inform you that it can see no grounds on which to sustain your complaint.
I read that out for two reasons: first, because that response was not in the possession of the Committee when we finalised our report, and secondly because it is clearly relevant to the conclusions that the Committee drew in the absence of that information.

Mr. Alex Salmond: The hon. Gentleman's views on the further reference to the European authorities is well known following the vote that took place in the Committee. Does he not recall, however, that, in his evidence to the Committee, Sir Robert Scholey, British Steel's chairman, claimed that the European


Commission would exert some blocking power on the sale of the Scottish steel industry? He said, in fact, that "it would have them jumping out of their skins".
Is it not the case that both the letter from the Commission and the Committee's own further investigations proved that that was not true, and that, whether knowingly or unknowingly, the chairman of British Steel had attempted to mislead the Select Committee?

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: The words with which I started my quotation give the Commission's own views on that. Those words can speak for themselves; they do not need me to speak for them. I am not authorised to speak on behalf of the European Commission. Nor am I authorised to speak on behalf of British Steel. But I do think that this letter makes an additional contribution to our debate today.
The other paper which is relevant to today's debate is, of course, the Government's response to our recommendations, which was published on 22 May by this Committee. We published reports and observations by the Government on the second report of the Trade and Industry Committee. So I think that that completes the papers which the House needs to consider in order to form an important judgment on this now irreversible series of events.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. Before I call another hon. Member, I should say that Mr. Speaker has asked me to make a strong plea for short speeches. This debate must finish at 7.36 pm and a tremendous number of hon. Members wish to speak.

Mr. Donald Dewar: May I start by congratulating and thanking the Select Committee for its efforts and careful consideration of the issues. The hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) spoke with a certain precision and scholarly niceness, but that is far removed from the passion and red blood of the arguments in Scotland, where the steel industry's fate has caused great anxiety and understandable and justified bitterness.
I admire those who have conducted and maintained the campaign tirelessly, with impletion and dignity over a period of literally years. The work force and the stewards who represent them in Clydesdale, Ravenscraig and Dalzell have never flinched and have maintained their position with immense courage, determination and effectiveness.
I greatly regret that the Secretary of State for Scotland is not in the House today. It is now well known—almost notoriously well known—that he is in Edinburgh at a royal garden party. I recognise that he would normally be expected to keep such an engagement. However, the circumstances are exceptional and he should be here, accounting to hon. Members and the people of Scotland for his actions or lack of them.

Mr. Michael Brown: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You will recall that the question of the whereabouts of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland was drawn to Mr. Speaker's attention at the beginning of this debate. Mr. Speaker said that if the Secretary of State was attending an engagement at the Palace or Holyrood house, it was a command from the sovereign.

Mr. Jimmy Hood: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The House is wasting precious time with these points of order. That is a debating point and has nothing whatever to do with the Chair.

Mr. Dewar: On Monday this week, Lanarkshire and Scotland suffered a severe blow as a result of the Dalzell announcement. There are questions about the extent: to which the Secretary of State was privy to British Steel's decision. There are severe doubts about the Government's commitment to rebuilding Lanarkshire's economy and whether promises of additional funding have been made in good faith. In his own interests, the Secretary of State should have been here to answer the charges that are being widely made about his competence and integrity.
On 26 June, the Secretary of State wrote to me refusing a meeting to discuss the steel industry and saying that there would be an opportunity, during the proposed estimates debate on steel, for Members to express their views on the Government's position in relation to the Scottish steel industry. I shall certainly make use of that opportunity, but, in the light of that letter, the Secretary of State's absence is extraordinary. He might have thought that he had a duty to listen and to learn. His behaviour can only reinforce fears about his ability to grasp the scale of Scotland's present problems.
It is a disease that has afflicted not only the Scottish Office. Although it is sad that the Secretary of State for Scotland is not present, it is compounded by the fact that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is not here either. After all, he is the Minister with direct responsibility for steel and his Department is very much involved in the estimates that we are discussing. Not only is neither Secretary of State present, but not even the Minister responsible for steel in the Department of Trade and Industry is here. It seems as though almost every Minister who should be here is absent without leave, which may be a measure of the embarrassment that they feel about what has been happening and the recent tragedies that have unfolded in the Scottish steel industry.
The tragedy has taken the form of a vendetta, ruthlessly conducted over many years by British Steel's top management. The evidence of malice has been persistent and unmistakable. The plants in many areas have had excellent records of productivity and the work force has shown a commitment to quality control. If, in some parts, there has been a shading of that performance in recent months, it is because of the persistent refusal in the past decade to give the plants and work force the tools and investment to carry out the job.
Some time ago, British Steel decided to concentrate on an even smaller number of sites. Scotland is not the only part of the United Kingdom to suffer and there will be other victims in the future if present policies are pursued. The obsession was reinforced by privatisation, and wider considerations of public interest were abandoned along with the work force which, in Clydesdale, Ravenscraig and Dalzell, have served the industry so well. Employees became no more than a disposable asset. Valid and well-founded technical and financial arguments were swept away, soon to be followed by the plants, simply because they did not fit into Sir Robert Scholey's grand design.

Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: Will the hon. Gentleman commit a possible future Labour Government to keeping the plants at Dalzell and Scunthorpe open? Would they intervene to keep them open? Yes or no?

Mr. Dewar: The answer is simply that the Government's sin is not that they have failed but that they have not tried. We have seen a dereliction of duty by the Government over a considerable period. For example, I gather from an interview of the Under-Secretary of State in The Scotsman today that British Steel is prepared to clear the sites of its former plants only in the most superficial fashion. It refuses even to deal with the central problems of subsidence and contamination. The cost to the public purse has been estimated at over £50 million. We have a company that is not afraid to act as an industrial vandal and the Government have stood by and watched it happen. They do not care that their policies add insult to injury. The Scottish Office has, once again, been left lamenting and empty handed.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): If the hon. Gentleman had been Secretary of State for Scotland for the past year, precisely what would he have done differently?

Mr. Dewar: We shall be saying a good deal about that. On the specific point with which I am dealing, I would have made it clear to British Steel that it could not simply nod an apology as it left and that it could not walk away without even clearing and preparing the sites that it was abandoning. I would not then lament the fact in a public interview in The Scotsman but apparently do nothing about it. I would not remain a member of a Government who, when hon. Members came to the Department of Trade and Industry worried about the loss of thousands of jobs, told those hon. Members that they were doing nothing and would do nothing because the Scottish Office had asked them to do nothing.
As long as I am in politics I shall remember the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry who is responsible for the steel industry getting the name "Ravenscraig" wrong. Perhaps it was an unfortunate slip of the tongue. He then told me that he would not be involved and saw no need to be involved. The difference between a Government who are committed to trying to save those jobs and who believe that the industry has a future and are prepared to use the influence, leverage and pressure of the Government to do something about it, and a Government who make a virtue of the fact that they are doing nothing is the difference between success and failure, between betrayal and a Government who know their duty.
On Monday, British Steel attempted to pronounce the death sentence on Dalzell, moving ruthlessly on from the destruction of Clydesdale and Ravenscraig. The timing and form of the announcement is of some interest. The Minister owes us an account of the Government's involvement because it has been alleged that, on 4 June, British Steel told Ministers that that would happen. The Government therefore collaborated with the company. If that is true, they were simply the passive recipients of unwelcome news, interested only in minimising the embarrassment to the Government and distancing the Secretary of State as best they could from the coming disaster.
It has already been mentioned by other hon. Members that the Prime Minister was writing to the Dalzell stewards on 4 June—the very day—[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. This is a serious debate, let us hear what the Opposition have to say about it.

Mr. Dewar: I hope that my colleagues will not be offended, but I must confess that the comings and goings of the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) are of limited interest.

Mr. Oppenheim: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Surely it is reasonable for an hon. Member to walk out of the Chamber when, patently, he has not received an answer from the Opposition spokesman.

Madam Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair. There has been no breach of Standing Orders.

Mr. Dewar: Let me assure the hon. Member for Amber Valley—who I believe has finally left us—that I was making the point that I did not care whether he was here or there—he is usually both.

Mr. Irvine Patnick: Cheap.

Mr. Dewar: The Whip is mouthing "Cheap" at me. I think that he recognised the description—that is probably the trouble.
I should like to return to the serious points. The Prime Minister was writing to the Dalzell shop stewards on 4 June, the very day on which we understand—it is up to the Minister to confirm it—that the Secretary of State for Scotland learnt of the decision to close the plant. Many people will wonder if the letter was any more than a defensive device, written in the knowledge of what was coming. The Secretary of State is shaking his head—

Mr. Allan Stewart: The Parliamentary Under-Secretary.

Mr. Dewar: Ah, well, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary is shaking his head. He may be able to clear this up—we shall wait. I hope that he will give us some details. I recognise that his job is complex and difficult.
I was interested to read of the important concession made in an article in today's edition of The Scotsman, to which I have already referred. In it, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, talking of the industrial mix of Scotland, said:
In addition, there are situations when the Scottish Office has to know what is happening and liaise with Whitehall—an example of that would be Rosyth.
I am glad that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary and, no doubt, the Secretary of State recognise that there are occasions when the Scottish Office has to know what is happening. I should have hoped that the Scottish Office would like to know what is happening most of the time, but that may be an optimistic assumption to make of the present incumbents.
There are also rumours circulating about imminent announcements involving Rosyth. If they are as advertised, any words about being in touch with what is happening and liaising with Whitehall in that connection


may come back to haunt the Parliamentary Under-Secretary unless he can deliver in a way in which he has signally failed to do in the past for the steel industry in Scotland.
On 14 June, BBC Radio Scotland reported that the decision to close Dalzell had been taken and Ministers had been told of it. That was followed by fierce denials all round. It is typical. Throughout the proceedings, it seems that the Government have been more interested in saving face and manipulating the timetable for their own political purposes than in finding solutions to existing problems. That shabby episode does little for the confidence of those who hope for a little frankness in public affairs.
I now come to the substantive points. I believe that the Government lost the battle with British Steel at an early stage. It goes back to the days when the now Secretary of State for Transport was Secretary of State for Scotland and complacently told Scottish Members that privatisation was the best way of ensuring a secure future for the industry. The message was that British Steel always knew best.
The Government have never put British Steel under effective pressure. They have not acted with decision in the public interest. The Department of Trade and Industry did nothing and said nothing, claiming as its alibi that it had not been asked to help by the Scottish Office. We were left with the impression that the Secretary of State for Scotland was licensed by the Cabinet to make noises and protests as long as they were ineffective and as long as he did not embarrass his colleagues by asking them to join the fight. That is not the sort of service that we expect from a Government of the United Kingdom, and it is certainly not the sort of service and commitment that Scotland expects from a Secretary of State for Scotland.
There was a complacent acceptance of guarantees at the time of privatisation which turned out to be worthless. There has been a persistent refusal to recognise that the existence of the golden share—I concede that it has a limited remit—meant that the industry had a special standing and the Government had a special relationship with, and responsibility for, its fate.
The Secretary of State's casual admission to the Select Committee of the interests of prospective purchasers and the subsequent failure to act to allow them to pursue those interests seems lamentable. I stress that twice in recent months my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) and I have made requests to both the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Secretary of State for Scotland for meetings to discuss the future of the Scottish steel industry and the aftermath of the announcements that had then been made. On both occasions, both Secretaries of State replied that they would not have meetings with their opposite numbers because there was nothing to discuss.
I cannot remember any time in my career when, with a major industrial issue unresolved, with jobs and investments at stake and anxieties being expressed, a Secretary of State has refused point blank to discuss the matter or meet his opposite number because he felt that it was not necessary. Everyone in Scotland thought that the meeting was necessary. I do not belittle the fact that the problems are difficult to solve, particularly post-privatisation, but to say that there is no place for, and no point in, a meeting seems to be an insulting wish to save ministerial embarrassment at the expense of public interest and the parliamentary process.
What of the future? Steel making at Ravenscraig will continue at least until 1994. Plates will be produced at Dalzell until 1994 or perhaps as late as 1996. Are Ministers prepared to stand aside as spectators of the sad, dying decline of a great industry? The Government should be prepared, and Labour would be prepared, to look at new technology and to examine such options as thin slab casting. Ministers should be prepared to explore and push the Arthur D. Little options, not simply nod to them in passing. As I understood it, that was the view of the Select Committee, expressed in its conclusions and in the text of its report.
The Labour party has never accepted that the one plate mill strategy was inevitably right and the only way forward for the industry. What has happened this week fully justified our scepticism. I believe that, even now, there is a case for further investment in Dalzell and the introduction of accelerated cooling techniques. A strong financial case has been made for that investment, and the Government should not accept, as the Prime Minister has said, that the decision will be for British Steel to take on commercial considerations alone. There is a wider public interest which a wise Government would not ignore.
In its annual report, British Steel made it clear that a final decision on the Teesside investment would be taken only when the budget had been agreed and optimum financial and technical terms had been finalised. The stewards at Dalzell are rightly determined to argue the commercial case, despite British Steel's record of embittering indifference. Above all, Ministers should be pressing British Steel to offer their existing plants in Scotland for sale in the open market. The Government preach the gospel of competition, the spirit—

Mr. Richard Holt: It is the first time that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned Teesside, and there are no Labour Members representing Teesside present. Would a Labour Government stop investment in Teesside and so stop the joy and jobs which it has brought to my constituents in that hard-pressed part of the north-east of England simply because the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) wears a Scottish hat and is not concerned with the whole country?

Mr. Dewar: No, and if the hon. Gentleman had listened to my arguments he would understand why. We welcome investment in the industry, and modernisation. Throughout the long, hard and sometimes depressing days of the campaign, the steel workers in Scotland have never cavilled about development in south Wales or the north of England or anywhere else. We still want a modern, competitive industry. What I have said—and I hold to this—is that we have consistently argued that the idea that one can concentrate on not just five integrated sites, but reduce it to two or three at the most—so that one concentrates and concentrates still further—is not necessarily the right formula for the industry. Of course, I welcome investment in Teesside, but I do not believe that that excludes investment in Dalzell or other parts of the industry.
To return to my point about sale on the open market, the Secretary of State told the Select Committee that there had been "approaches from interested parties", but that they did not have the information to pursue matters. In that case the Government should have made sure that they were in a position at least to make their approach and to consider whether they could get to the stage of an offer. If


British Steel is so certain that there is no case for a strip mill at Ravenscraig of for a plate mill at Dalzell, what risk does it run in testing the market? The only explanation is that it wants to knock out the capacity. I should not have thought that an attractive argument to a Government who preach the doctrine of competition.
What about the future? There have been many easy promises to rebuild Lanarkshire's industrial base. It is, of course, easier to make the commitment than to carry it out. Even if the Government have failed the steel industry it is important that people be convinced that a new and diversified economy is the long-term aim of the Government and that in the short term immediate steps are being taken to lay the foundations for that. Precious little, however, has happened so far. A working party has been set up. I have been told, I do not know whether accurately, that its chairman opened the first meeting by saying that the group should base its plans on the assumption that there would be no additional finance. Certainly, there does not seem to be enough money to measure up to the scale of the crisis.
The Prime Minister told the party faithful at Perth on 10 May:
For too long the outdated face of Scottish industry turned opportunity away. Now people and businesses are voting for Scotland with their cash and with their feet.
The Prime Minister's message has obviously not got through to Sir Robert Scholey. The Prime Minister did, however, recognise in the same speech
that for all the progress since 1979, some parts of Scotland have managed these changes less easily than others. Lanarkshire is one.
I think that that was a delicate reference to unemployment and to the closure of the steel industry.
The upshot was the offer of £15 million to green over the worst areas of industrial decline. There was something a touch patronising about that. The Labour party is not interested in greening over the memories of industrial decline. We want to put in its place viable industries that provide jobs and a high technology base for a work force with skill, commitment and a wish to earn their way.
Where is the £15 million? I asked the economic section of the Library to look into the matter. It told me that the money was not in the June supplementary estimates—so far, it appears to have had life only on the page of a party conference speech. That is rather curious; after all, the speech was made at the beginning of May and the estimates were for June. If the Government had been genuinely committed to finding even that limited additional money for Lanarkshire I should have expected it to appear in the June supplementary estimates. It may just be a little late and be on its way, but I should like an unambiguous answer from the Under-Secretary.
The Government have responded to the package unveiled by the working party, but I must protest that the small print makes depressing reading. The working party spoke of the need for spending between £200 million and £300 million and it required between £85 million and £110 million for immediate projects. Measured against that, the Government's response adds up to next to nothing.
Of course, large figures are bandied about, but most of them come from programmes already in being. The commissioning of a much-needed general hospital at

Wishaw—awaited for many years—is hardly a tailor-made response to the crisis in the steel industry. The Government's efforts begin to fall apart on closer inspection. The A8 upgrading from Baillieston to Newhouse, on the stocks for years, is only to be the object of a further design study. At second glance that looks like a way of putting off the project. The additional money that the regional council will have to find as its contribution will merely be a factor for consideration in next year's revenue grant settlement.
The central plan for enterprise zone status is only to be considered by the Government
against the background of its existing policy on Enterprise Zones and the cost which might be involved.
Asked to explain what that meant the Minister protested:
It means exactly what it says.
That is the problem. It sounds like a further recipe for muddle and delay and it will probably end with a victory for the Treasury.
We are all uncomfortably aware that Scotland is not bouncing back towards economic recovery. We are plunging into recession. The Minister should look at the report just published by Cambridge Econometrics which gloomily states that the north-south divide is a permanent feature of the economic landscape and that when recovery ultimately comes growth in Scotland will be lower than in any other part of Britain.
Against that background the Government's performance is unconvincing and inadequate. The truly damaging charge is not that they have failed but that they did not even try. There has been no commitment, and no willingness to take the fight to British Steel, to challenge, to harry, to use with imagination the power and influence of the Government. The dreary story of political failure is bad enough. Far worse are its implications for the future of Lanarkshire and of its people, who have worked and delivered honourably in often difficult economic conditions over the years.
The Government's response does not begin to measure up to these people's needs, to reflect the respect that they have earned or to repay the debt of honour owed. British Steel has treated the industry and the people shabbily. That is a disgrace and a disappointment. It would be a tragedy in the fullest sense of the word if the Government now abdicated their responsibility.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: I follow the speech by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) with some pleasure and with an apology. The hon. Gentleman said that he wanted a viable high-technology-based industry in Scotland. When I have finished speaking—I apologise for this—I shall have to leave for a meeting in which a huge investment in just such a base in Scotland is being prepared and discussed. We do not need any lessons, therefore, from Labour Members—

Mr. Menzies Campbell: A champagne bottling plant?

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: I am afraid that Highland Spring, based in my constituency, contains no wine—and it was I who brought the company there, since when it has employed a great many people.
When discussing the steel industry in Scotland we should remember how Ravenscraig came about in the first


place. It was a political bribe to Scotland. I do not care what colour of Government put it there but it should have been a plant in Wales. The Government refused that idea and the Department responsible for industry at the time suggested throwing a sop to each Cerberus and giving Scotland a steel industry—in the wrong place, away from deep water, near which it would have been viable. Thus was Ravenscraig born. Like all similar industrial-political bribes for Scotland, it has paid a terrible penalty. Nevertheless, it became a source of employment, not just in the industry but for suppliers and shops. It sucked in people from England. So did Linwood which was a ridiculous industrial investment foisted on the place by a Government trying to buy votes in Scotland. Then there was Alcan—it was in the wrong place; Fort William pulp mill—also in the wrong place; likewise Bathgate.
Predictably, all these plants failed because they were installed not for commercial or industrial reasons but for political reasons. They sucked in enormous numbers of people, not from Scotland but from other parts of the United Kingdom. When the collapse came, created communities which were viable only on the basis of this great industrial investment were left with nothing to do. Ravenscraig was one of the most tragic of those. Hunterston is in deep water but it is in mothballs and shut. The most important factor in the production of steel is the cost of transport. Most viable steelworks are on the coast and that is why they remain viable.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: No, I shall give way later.

Mr. Campbell: It is on this point.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: I did not think that Opposition Members understood my point.
We have a responsibility to be brave and it was cheap and stupid for the hon. Member for Garscadden to suggest that the Secretary of State was dependent on a sovereign. I am willing to bet 1,000p to a dime or a Scots penny that if roles had been the other way round the hon. Member for Garscadden would have been a collier, and would certainly not have been at Ravenscraig.
False political industrial developments should not be countenanced. There are tens of thousands more people employed in Scotland than when we took office, and that message should go out from the House.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Scotland's population is falling.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: That means that an even greater percentage of the population is employed. It is falling because the Liberal Democrats are not frightfully good at conceding anything. Scotland has 40 per cent. of inward investment and people there enjoy a quality of life better than that in any other part of Europe. That is why new companies can be persuaded to come to Scotland.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: This is a music hall turn.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: There is nothing wrong with the music hall. Greenock used to have music halls before the hon. Member represented it, but he is so boring that they have all closed.
Socialism did not invent the steel industry; it was invented by private enterprise. We cannot have industrial museums nor can we say that industries should be maintained simply because they have always been there. That is quite the wrong approach. The correct approach is new investment and new concepts. I am informed by those who claim to know that more than 80 per cent. of everything that hon. Members will use by the end of the century has still to be invented. That is the market that we must seek. Industrial dinosaurs must not be kept in being. Let us be inspired about getting investment into Scotland. I am trying to do something about that, and I hope that the Opposition are doing the same.

Mr. Stan Crowther: I shall not attempt to comment on the amusing and rather quaint speech by the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn). It is clear that he did not read our Select Committee report.
We should bear in mind that we are debating not only the steel industry in Scotland, but the industry throughout the United Kingdom. This is an opportune time to do that just three days after British Steel reported the most miserable year in living memory, a year in which output was significantly reduced and profits were down by 65 per cent. According to the newspapers, Sir Robert Scholey is to take a pay cut. We are not told the size of the cut or whether it will be 65 per cent. in line with the drop in profits. We shall wait and see.
The debate takes place one day after the latest OECD report makes crystal clear that the recession in Britain is far worse than in any other western country and that, in the main, it is due to Government policy. Ministers should accept that the recession is not an act of God but a result of their policies.
The recession is especially tragic for the steel communities which in the 1980s went through the most appalling social pain when plant after plant was closed and 120,000 jobs were destroyed—all in the interests of creating a greatly reduced industry that would be ripe for privatisation.
A vast investment of taxpayers' money led to huge increases in productivity in the remaining BSC plants arid one after another they entered the private sector. Those companies were Allied Steel and Wire, Sheffield Forgemasters, United Engineering Steels and, finally, British Steel plc.
Rotherham lost 10,000 jobs during that period of restructuring—a term invented by the European Commission which means closure. The community that I represent has not recovered from those job losses. Unemployment is still appallingly high in Rotherham. I am not speaking about the travel-to-work area which includes the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy). In my constituency, almost 7,000 are out of work.
Conservative Members who have not seen such a process in their constituencies may not understand the terrible consequences and the distress, poverty, family strain and ill-health that unemployment brings. We are still suffering in Rotherham. In Rotherham, as in other steel areas, people thought that some good would come of all that pain. United Engineering Steels emerged as the biggest and, at that time, the most productive engineering


steel maker in the European Community. We thought that that company, which had been slimmed down and was lean and fit—those were the expressions Ministers used in those days—could hold its own and beat any competitor in Europe. Unfortunately, we overlooked the Government's limitless capacity to get things wrong. These dedicated apostles of privatisation, the disciples of the free market, have not only left the steel industry to sink or swim but have done their best to push its head under water. An industry that was supposed to be leaner and fitter is now struggling to survive. It is still contracting. Almost every month more closures and more redundancies are announced.
The closure of Ravenscraig is an excellent illustration of the mess in which the industry finds itself. It is not good enough to say that the closure had to take place because of some surplus capacity in Europe. We went through all that in the 1980s. During that period there were so many closures and 120,000 jobs were lost. That happened because we were being pressed by the European Commission to reduce capacity because of a supposed surplus. It is no good saying now that there is a surplus and that the Ravenscraig hot mill must close.
There is no surplus capacity in Britain. How can anyone pretend that there is when 38 per cent. of the home market for these products is supplied by imports? How can it be claimed that there is surplus manufacturing capacity in Britain in the light of that level of imports?
When the Select Committee on Trade and Industry was conducting an inquiry into Ravenscraig, someone told us that Ravenscraig was too far from its customers in the vehicle industry. That is more or less the argument that was advanced by the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross. How can that be justified when German manufacturers, for example, can get their products into the west midlands? It is nonsense to suggest that Ravenscraig is too far away from the industry that needs its products.
The House will have noticed that the Select Committee's report contains some fairly critical comments about Sir Robert Scholey. I feel that the criticism is not unfair. The most amazing fact to emerge, apart from the fact that Sir Robert had not been near the Ravenscraig works for five years, was that he refused to give the economic justification for closing the Ravenscraig hot mill not only to the shop stewards but to the Secretary of State for Scotland. That is what he told us. I think that all the members of the Select Committee found that astonishing.
The Select Committee's report contains certain criticisms of Bob Scholey but I do not blame him for the terrible difficulties that his company and others are facing. Instead, I blame the Government. A large part of the problem stems from the ridiculous exchange rates at which the Prime Minister, when Chancellor of the Exchequer, took us into the exchange rate mechanism. I spoke to many British manufacturers at the time, and almost all of them were in despair. They knew that their German competitors were rubbing their hands with glee.
Then there came another body blow, for United Engineering Steels and other large electricity users. My hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth referred to it when he spoke in the energy debate. All the steel that emerges from United Engineering Steels is produced through the electric-arc process, and it is the largest

purchaser of electricity in the Yorkshire and Humberside region. It is having to cope with an increase in electricity prices of about 20 per cent. That is a direct consequence of the privatisation of the electricity industry.
If anyone doubts my assertion, I shall take a few moments to explain why I make it. When the electricity industry was being privatised, we were told that the outcome would be competition. It was said that privatisation would enable large users to shop around and buy their electricity from the best source that they could find. That has not been the outcome. There is a man who is known as the Director General of Electricity Supply, who is empowered to fix a limit in each region on the amount of electricity that can be bought directly from the generating companies, and in Yorkshire and Humberside the limit is 10 per cent. Therefore, United Engineering Steels cannot shop around and approach PowerGen, National Power and the Yorkshire regional company to see which organisation can offer the best price. The competition that we were promised has not appeared and there is not a free market.
The arrangement which used to be beneficial to large consumers of electricity, under which they could obtain a discount because they were huge purchasers, was abolished in April. As a result, the large consumers are suffering on two fronts. I explained that when I went with my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and members of the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation to meet the Under-Secretary of State for Energy. The hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) seemed to know nothing about the difficulties faced by consumers. He said that in any event it was nothing to do with him and that responsibility rested with the director general.
It is the habit of Ministers to push through the Government's policies, even though they are warned of the dangers by those who know something about the likely outcome of them, and then to leave others to pick up the pieces. Ministers cannot continue for ever to blame others. All the main steel-using industries—vehicles, shipbuilding, construction and machine tools—are in the doldrums as a result of the Government's policies. It is time that Ministers started to take a genuine interest in manufacturing industry and to stop saying that it is all someone else's fault when things go wrong. They have a duty to give the steel industry and steel-using industries a chance to compete on equal terms with foreign manufacturers. It is a chance that they have not given them so far.
Energy costs, interest rates and exchange rates militate against British manufacturers, and all these factors come within the realm of Government policies. If Ministers would only do their duty and give the steel industry and steel-using industries a fighting chance, I am convinced that our steel men could beat the competition anywhere else in the world.

Sir Hector Monro: I agree with some of the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther). He was, of course, a member of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, and I know that he knows a great deal about the steel industry. His recounting of the repercussions of closures for his constituency highlight the problems that concern Lanarkshire today, and even more so in future. I thank the Select Committee


on Trade and Industry—the Chairman is my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Warren), and my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), who presented the report, is a member of it—for producing the report. It seems that the theme throughout the report is the failure of British Steel to communicate with the Government, with its employees and with the Select Committee. It was wrong of British Steel to shelter behind commercial information or judgment and not to reveal the financial criteria that forced it to come to a conclusion that no one else could understand.
It was obvious from the start that British Steel had no interest in its Scottish base, but, as the hon. Member for Rotherham has said, there is a huge Scottish market. I think of the oil fields, steel fabricators, the construction industry and a thousand or more other users. It was wrong to concentrate on markets south of the border, on the continent or in other parts of the world. As the hon. Member for Rotherham has said, steel produced in Germany and in other parts of the continent is readily available in Scotland. Why cannot we produce steel profitably in Scotland? It has been wrong of British Steel to concentrate future developments in England and Wales to the detriment of the work force employed in Scotland.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) was right to talk about the responsible campaign that has been pursued on behalf of the industry's work force and its trade unions and by the Scottish Trades Union Congress. I found little in the Select Committee's report that substantiated, even under cross-examination, a good reason to close the steel industry in Scotland. That was brought out extremely well on pages 8 and 9 of the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation's publication, where the Select Committee's report is examined succinctly and concisely. It highlights British Steel's poor showing before the Select Committee, the lack of information, the way in which British Steel reneged on its promises on the sale of Ravenscraig and, as a side issue—something which is topical at present—the substantial increase in the salaries of British Steel directors despite the dwindling profits that were announced last week.
I would not like to be a prophet or to quote my own words, but during the Gartcosh debate on 23 January 1986, at column 485, I spoke of the link between the closure of Gartcosh and Ravenscraig, how Ravenscraig was a great symbol a manifestation of the Scottish steel industry, and how, if Gartcosh were closed, the fallout would be serious for the Scottish steel industry. We must remember that if it had not been for the effective work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger), British Steel would have done its best to shut Ravenscraig in 1982.
In the Gartcosh debate, I also asked what would happen to Dalzell, Clydesdale and Imperial if the closure of Gartcosh was not stopped; what about the repercussions on local industry; what about the local suppliers, and so on. We have had a long time to think about what could happen once we accepted the closure of Gartcosh.

Mr. Tom Clarke: The hon. Gentleman knows that at the time, as the Member of Parliament representing Gartcosh, I was particularly grateful for his support. However, does he accept—I think that he will—that the problems of site clearance at Gartcosh and elsewhere

underline how miserly and mean British Steel is being in the announcement that we read in The Scotsman this morning?

Sir Hector Monro: Yes, indeed. I have not finished with British Steel.
I also said that, in 1986, the South of Scotland electricity board received £1·7 million for the supply of power to the steel industry, and asked the House to consider what that could mean to the electricity industry in Scotland and the 1,400 suppliers to the steel industry in Lanarkshire, all of whom are now feeling the draught. I went on to say that the steel industry is, in a way, an indication of a nation's virility and that Ravenscraig without Gartcosh would be vulnerable. I protested. I felt that we had misjudged the industrial, political and social repercussions, and on that occasion I voted against the Government because I felt that we were giving the wrong signal to British Steel and to Scotland in general.
Let us look at what has happened during the past 13 months. I am highly critical of British Steel. It was announced that the hot strip mill was to close, with 770 unemployed. In November, the announcement was made about Clydesdale tube works. In February the reduction to the single blast furnace at Ravenscraig was announced. In June 1991, the Dalzell plate mill was closed. All that resulted in substantial unemployment.
That is a dreadful record for British Steel. Has it no responsibility to the nation or to its work force? Does it only have a responsibility to its shareholders? Great national institutions such as British Steel and ICI, or any other major company one can think of, have a wider responsibility than just to their shareholders. They have a duty to try to find a middle way forward to help when the situation is grave and difficult.
I know that boards, like the Cabinet, must have collective responsibility, but when one considers all the members of the British Steel board, I find it odd that none of them ever speaks out and questions what British Steel is doing. It is a great worry that a company of the importance of British Steel seems to have shied away from a fair introduction of capital to Scotland to enable some of the plants to remain open and for many of the employees to retain their jobs.
If that is to happen—I am highly critical of British Steel rather than anyone else—what shall we do now to help those in difficulty in Lanarkshire and those who will experience the knock-on effect of more closures? Will British Steel rethink? Having read Sir Robert Scholey's evidence to the Select Committee, I doubt whether he will. But let us check what he should be doing.
Will British Steel clear up the mess left behind by empty steel works? We believe strongly that the polluter must pay, as evidenced by the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Are we to hound British Steel to clear up the areas for which it has been responsible for generations? How shall we help the Lanarkshire development agency, now the local enterprise company, and Motherwell district council, all of which have put forward excellent papers?
I hope that, when my hon. Friend the Minister replies, he will be able to spell out—I am sure he will—the substantial sums of money that the Government and others are making available to help in the crisis. We should not look on it as less than a crisis for Lanarkshire during the next couple of years. I am glad that the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State have made


announcements, following the work of the Lanarkshire working group and others involved. We must simply press ahead with urgency to lay the foundations for a renaissance of industry in the area.
I met the same problems in a much smaller way when the coal mines closed in Upper Nithsdale, which was then in my constituency, when unemployment soared to 30 per cent. and more. The only way back was to have advance factories ready and waiting for incoming employers. They do not want to be told that it will take a year to produce a factory: they want to move in next week if they possibly can. Therefore, I would like to hear that Enterprise Scotland or the local enterprise company will press on with preparations for advance factories suitably sited and landscaped.
Everyone wants a high standard of workplace in the future. People do not want to go to derelict sites; they want to go to new attractive sites. We have got to work fast on that. We do not want to start next year; we want the architectural plans under way now and through the planning committees by October, and action on site as soon as possible in the new year.
We want to see co-operation. I know that we will get it from the jobcentres. We must bring in Locate in Scotland and, all importantly—something which the Government are addressing as the highest priority—the economic climate of the country must be right, with continuing low inflation and a steady lowering of interest rates.
There is the great opportunity of a new freight terminal at Mossend. However, if that is to happen, the Government would have to put pressure on British Rail. I hope that the Minister will comment on that when he replies. It would produce many new jobs on a green-field site. I hope that my hon. Friend will say that discussions are under way with British Rail and that such a terminal will be encouraged.
The west coast route will lose a lot of steel traffic. Whenever I come to the House of Commons, I stand in Carlisle station and see trainload on trainload of coiled steel going through. That will stop, so let us get some other attraction to bring British Rail to Scotland with an additional freight facility which I am sure will be developed further when the channel tunnel is opened.
I am sure that my hon. Friend will spell out what help will be available. Today we want to leave a message for Lanarkshire and the whole of the area of Strathclyde, which has had such a terrible knock that, yes, we are determined to provide opportunities. Yes, we will fulfil that promise by providing adequate resources to create the right infrastructure, construct advance factories, and bring new employers to the area. If we have a sense of urgency, motivation and enthusiasm, we can work together in partnership to help that part of Scotland.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I am grateful for the opportunity for this debate, and wholly accept the contention of the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) that it concerns British Steel. However, that emphasises the sadness we feel that not only is the Secretary of State for Scotland absent from the debate but the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry—whose

record in connection with the whole sorry story is abysmal. He has shown a determination to wash his hands of the entire situation.
I will not spend very much time analysing what has occurred, because it is more important to consider what we can do for the future of the steel industry and for the United Kingdom economy.
I contend—as I did at the time that British Steel was privatised—that the steel industry has suffered more than any other from ideological conflicts, having been kicked in and out of public ownership no fewer than four or, technically, five times. We argued that the Government should not privatise British Steel as a single entity but instead we have insisted on the creation of another company, with Scottish capacity as its nucleus.
At the time of privatisation, the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) tabled an amendment which, had it been adopted, might significantly have altered the future direction of the British steel industry, and that of Scotland in particular might today be in a much healthier state. No one can guarantee that, but such a policy would have created better opportunities.
Those of us who knew before privatisation and, at the time that it occurred, of Bob Scholey's attitude to Scottish steel knew that it was doomed from the moment that British Steel was put in the private sector with him as its chairman. There was no hope from then on. No one can tell me that we are talking about a rational, objective, analytical decision as to the best interests of British Steel and its shareholders, or of the national interest.
As a member of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry in the earlier part of this Parliament, I cross-examined Sir Bob Scholey, and came to know of the almost pathological response that he makes whenever Scotland and Scottish steel are mentioned. It is not a rational, lucid, or well-argued response, but sheer venom against everything that Scotland and Scottish steel stand for. We have a right to be bitter in the knowledge that the Government knowingly put British Steel into the hands of that man, for we in Scotland knew what would be the consequences of that decision, and attempted to prevent what was almost an inevitable disaster.
I note that the Secretary of State is absent because of his engagement at Buckingham palace with Her Majesty. Sir Bob Scholey seems to suggest that the entire steel strike originated at Ravenscraig—which was a disgraceful slur on its work force, given the contribution that it made to the turnround in British Steel's profits since privatisation. I gained the impression that it would be easier to persuade Attila the Hun to behave with decorum at a royal garden party than to persuade Sir Bob Scholey publicly to acknowledge the contribution made by Scottish steel workers to British steel's productivity, profitability, and his own salary—until it was cut as a result of this year's profits downturn.
A few months ago, I and a number of my hon. Friends met the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to persuade him to accept his obligation, as a supposed promoter of competition, to intervene and to take action. His response was a caricature of what ought to take place in a constructive discussion between Members of Parliament and a Secretary of State for Trade and Industry who claims to be one of the leading thinkers of the free market. For about half an hour, we discussed the Secretary of State's responsibilities to promote steel competition, the importance of competition to British


trade and the country's balance of payments, and the circumstances in which he felt that he had any responsibility to intervene, on the ground either of competition or the national interest.
It was impossible to persuade the right hon. Gentleman to confirm that there were any circumstances in which he would intervene. We asked him what he would do if British Steel's board decided that it was in the shareholders' best interest to shift all the company's production and investment capacity to South Korea, on the ground that it would be more profitable. The right hon. Gentleman said that was a hypothetical question, and one that he was not prepared to address. I hope that it remains a hypothetical question, but one cannot give any guarantee. The Secretary of State's ducking of that question implies that he acknowledges his responsibility, but is not prepared to accept it.
It is still appropriate and relevant to insist—and the Government still have the power to do this—that British Steel disposes of all its Scottish assets as a going concern; to at least attempt to establish whether there exists an alternative bidder who wants to move into the market. When I refer to all the company's assets, I specifically include Hunterston, which offers a long-term attraction as a steel plant that has yet to be developed. It is despicable that British Steel should be allowed to kick out a whole generation of steel workers, yet hang on to a prime plum, which, at some time in the future, it may make the subject of investment or disposal. There may be more alternative bidders now, though if the Government had taken action three or four years ago today's climate might be even more favourable.
The European Community and the treaty of Paris impose certain constraints, but I understand that the action I suggest is entirely within the Government's power and in no way incompatible with the treaty. The hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) has left the Chamber, but I may say in response to his remarks that, in reality, the nationalisation of a steel industry or of any plant is irrelevant, because the treaty introduces specific limitations regardless of whether the concern is in the private or public sector. Those who suggest that nationalisation is the answer are being very misleading.

Mr. Sillars: Suppose the hon. Gentleman's hypothetical nightmare became a reality and we found ourselves talking, in the British context—never mind the Scottish context—about shifting all steel production from the United Kingdom to Korea. Would not public ownership prevent that hypothetical nightmare turning into reality? Right hon. and hon. Members can fulminate as much as they like, but the fact remains that we have no control over decision-making in respect of a privatised concern. However, if the steel industry were in public ownership, the situation would be entirely different.

Mr. Bruce: Not as much control as the hon. Gentleman pretends to the Scottish people. He cannot expect Scotland to be an independent sovereign state and a full participating member of the European Community, yet the only one not bound by the treaties that all its other member states have signed. The treaty of Paris is clearly restrictive. On occasions, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars) has given the impression that massive investment could be channelled into Scotland's steel sector, regardless of profitability. I believe that that is

possible, but the right way forward is to use existing competition policy, and that is entirely within the British Government's domestic power and in accord with the treaty of Paris.

Mr. Salmond: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to intervene?

Mr. Bruce: I will not give way on the same point, which I have answered. Neither the hon. Member for Govan nor the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) should promise more than they can realistically deliver.
What of the consequences of British Steel's current decisions? The hon. Member for Rotherham made the pertinent point that the consequences of the contraction of Scotland's steel capacity will almost inevitably be a further loss of market share. That has been past experience. Our concern is that British Steel's reaction to a competitive squeeze will be to continue to contract so that it can make a profit from a smaller and smaller base. However, that strategy is devastatingly wrong for the national interest, and is likely to lead to a severe erosion of Britain's competitiveness and balance of payments.

Mr. Tim Devlin: I have listened with great interest to the hon. Gentleman, but surely he must realise that British Steel's productivity has soared and that it has invested a great deal in Teesside. I know that Scottish Opposition Members do not like British Steel's investment decisions. However, if there is new investment and if greater productivity is achieved, the industry is not necessarily contracting.

Mr. Bruce: The hon. Gentleman should look at British Steel's record. It has contracted substantially. It has given up its market share. That has been the standard pattern to date. Some of the steel capacity given up in Scotland has not been replaced elsewhere in terms of the quality of steel on offer. British Steel has made a conscious decision to give up markets. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman is not right. However, it is right to talk about the increase in productivity achieved by British Steel. The greatest increases were achieved in the Scottish steel plants, but little thanks they got for that from the management of British Steel.
The decisions that have already been taken for Lanarkshire have created a major and worsening crisis in Lanarkshire, not just in terms of blight, unemployment and devastation but in terms of community morale. Everything is on a downward spiral. There is lack of hope and no optimism. It is incumbent on the Government to recognise that the scale of resources that is necessary is of a very much larger order than anything that they have yet put forward. The local council estimates that it has 2,000 acres of derelict land and that it will cost £60 million to bring it back into alternative use. It also estimates that the total cost is likely to be about £200 to £300 million. The Government must say where that money is to come from and how it is to be channelled.
The Government seem determined to resolve the future of the new town development corporations in Scotland. It is generally accepted that they have made a great contribution to attracting investment to Scotland and to a style of development that has been extremely successful. Rather than that it should be dissipated, will the Minister consider the creation of a west of Scotland development corporation that could draw on the expertise of the new


towns and, in co-operation with the local authorities, be provided with a real estate portfolio and a package of planning and development agreements that would enable it to attract substantial new industry that could bring new hope to the area?
The hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) implied that advance factories are necessary. I do not disagree with him, but in many cases custom-built factories for major new projects that can be built quickly on attractive green-field sites are required. We need to identify urgently attractive new sites and also provide for the rehabilitation of derelict land. We shall not succeed if we try to attract prime new investment on to derelict land. No one will wish to invest there. It has to be done in two phases. I hope that the Minister accepts that that is a constructive, sensible and timely proposal.

Dr. Jeremy Bray: In Motherwell, we are very conscious of the support that we have enjoyed in all parts of the House for the problems that the industry faces, as well as a readiness to address the problems that we shall face in the future as we enter a period of major industrial change. May I express the thanks of the steel workers and the people of Lanarkshire to the Trade and Industry Select Committee for both this and previous inquiries it has carried out into the affairs of the steel industry. In particular, I wish the Chairman of the Select Committee a speedy recovery from his incapacity.
I pay tribute to the trade union leaders of the Scottish steel plants—in particular to Mr. Tommy Brennan, the chairman of the Ravenscraig joint trade union committee until he was made redundant last Friday—for the magnificent fight that they have led for their industry. It has been, and it always will be, a privilege to work with them.
The effective decisions to close the Scottish steel industry—the Ravenscraig hot mill, the second blast furnace, the Dalzell plate mill, the Clydesdale tube works and, as we may yet learn, the Imperial works and the remaining plants operating at Ravenscraig—were effectively taken by Government Ministers when they decided to privatise British Steel as a monopoly steel producer in the United Kingdom. The Scottish plants were not allowed to compete, as they could have done, by allying them with other plants in a competitive United Kingdom steel industry. They could and should have been allowed to prove their mettle.
The hands that closed the plants were the hairy hands of British Steel, but the voice was that of the Tory Government. It is the Tory party that will long be remembered in Scotland as doing it out of its industrial heritage. The sorry tale of wilful misunderstanding, of deliberate myopia, of cultivated naivety on the part of Ministers is there in the record of Parliament for all to read.
The United Kingdom is now one of the highest priced steel markets in Europe, with cold rolled sheet steeling selling for $460 a tonne, compared with $436 in Belgium and $433 in France. That was reported in the Financial Times on Monday of this week. That price difference reflects closely the transport costs from the European Community, a premium that British Steel is able to charge

because there is no competing producer in the United Kingdom. As reported today in the Financial Times, the European Commission has launched a probe into a suspected cartel of European Community steel producers that restricts the output of hot rolled coil, the biggest single element of which would be the closure of the Ravenscraig hot mill. As for loss of competition within the United Kingdom, we are already hearing complaints from British Steel management that the south Wales steel workers are taking advantage of the easing of competitive pressures from Ravenscraig to raise labour costs in south Wales. Surprise, surprise.
What I am concerned about, however, is not the dismal record of incompetence and betrayal by Ministers that has brought the steel industry in Scotland to its present sad state but where we go from here, if we are to rebuild an industrial base in the heart of Scotland.
As for the steel industry, phase 2 of the Arthur D. Little report, commissioned by the late-lamented Scottish Development Agency, confirmed, as I had suggested and as I have suggested for years, that the best option for Ravenscraig would be as a present generation thick slab producer, phasing into a coil and sheet producer by means of the new thin slab technology route. That would undercut, according to the figures in the Arthur D. Little report, Port Talbot and Llanwern. Without such a development, by the mid-1990s British Steel would be vulnerable to an electric arc mini-mill thin slab producer investing in the United Kingdom.
During the present recession, it is no use talking to British Steel about new technology, but its view in two years could be rather different, as British Steel pulls out of the recession under a new chairman. If British Steel management has an ounce of sense it will lash Black Bob Odysseus to the mast so that he will not follow the behest of the siren voices in the City luring him into the premature closure of what remains of Ravenscraig. That could close, for British Steel, a valuable route into new technology and put it at a serious competitive disadvantage. Furthermore, it would cost more money.
As for selling the hot mill to the Chinese, who are visiting Ravenscraig this weekend, there are components of the mill and its ancillary plant that could be used to save money in terms of building the new technology mill that would accompany thin slab casting. If the haste to sell the hot mill to the Chinese is an attempt to stop the development of a new technology mill, it will not work. That will not be the decisive factor.
Only this week, British Steel announced that it has taken the strategic decision to build a new plate mill on Teesside to replace the old Dalzell and Scunthorpe plate mills. I say to the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin), who represents my former constituency on Teesside, that if I had £400 million to spend on Teesside—which is a long-suffering community—I would spend it not on a plate mill, but on new materials production, whether from British Steel or from ICI, and I would not put the money into obsolescent technology as British Steel proposes to do. Rather than replace—

Mr. Devlin: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Although the debate centralises itself entirely on the steel industry, there is an immense amount of investment going on in a wide range of other industries, many of which were not there when he represented that part of the country. We


must not look at this purely in isolation and say that Teesside is investing in old technology; it is very much investing in new technology.

Dr. Bray: I look forward to debating the economy of Teesside with the hon. Gentleman in the future, but I think that he is wrong in his analysis.
With retained profits in British Steel cut from £399 million last year to £18 million this year, and interest rates in the United Kingdom the second highest in the industrial world, I do not know where British Steel will get the extra £300 million that it will need for the more expensive option of building a new plate mill on Teesside, rather than developing the Dalzell mill.
British Steel says that it is thinking of customers well into the next century. By then, and before building a plate mill on Teesside with obsolescent technology, it may be induced to spell out its arithmetic to shareholders and investment analysts who, it seems to think, are as credulous as Tory Ministers. If shareholders are that dumb, a Labour Government will have to tighten up the competition and company rules to make management more accountable. In Scotland we are not convinced. We demand that British Steel justify its plate strategy because we believe that the answers will come out in support of the redevelopment of the Dalzell mill.
I will address myself to the hard competitive, commercial realities where the customer rules because that is the world in which my constituents have always lived and worked. If they had merely pleaded social need, the community would have been swept away many years ago. The House should not confuse a determination to perform with a blindness to social need or a lack of community loyalty. It is that that is demanding effective action now to allow Lanarkshire, and Motherwell in particular, to continue to earn its living as it has always done.
The closures that have already taken place in steel and the undoubted difficulties and uncertainty of saving anything that remains in the Scottish steel plants means that the Government must now act decisively to lay the foundations for a new industrial economy in Motherwell in particular, and in Lanarkshire in general. Of the 14,700 jobs in steel in the Motherwell district in 1974, only 1,500 will remain when already announced closures have taken effect. The remainder will go if the last blast furnace in Ravenscraig is closed in 1994, as foreshadowed by British Steel.
The measures announced by the Government to attract new industry are totally inadequate, and were in the pipeline long before the steel closures were announced. Even the location of the freight terminal for Scotland at Mossend is still in doubt. We need an enterprise zone in Motherwell and the redevelopment of the steel sites, which from past closures form a great gaping hole in the heart of Motherwell. As long as they are left as a wilderness of dereliction, any lesser development measures elsewhere will be ineffectively cosmetic.
The opportunity provided by the new electrified InterCity rail service starting next Monday between Glasgow and Edinburgh should be taken. The plans and investment were made long ago, and the service had already been commissioned. The trains will stop only in Motherwell, so the opportunity should be taken to turn Motherwell into the kind of business satellite to the Scottish city centres that Croydon is to London.
I welcome the tone of the contribution made by the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) who urged the necessity and practicality of getting on with initiatives of real vision to create a new image for Motherwell. The main line between Glasgow, Edinburgh and London passes the steel sites where land has been in the ownership of the Scottish Development Agency for 10 years—throughout the lifetime of the Government—but nothing has been done about it. That land is available for a new main line station, which would be the only one in Scotland with ample car parking and development land adjacent to it.
The necessary design concept for a new millenium Motherwell new town on the former steel sites could be made the subject of a fully-fledged architectural competition. It would be a challenge to produce a design as civilised as Edinburgh new town, and as attractive to private development capital. In one sense, it would change the image of Motherwell. In another, it would confirm it as the contemporary industrial heart of Scotland, which has been demonstrated so magnificently in the fight for steel. That fight was not a fight for a smokestack industry. It was a fight for the industrial soul of a nation, reborn on the threshold of the new millenium. It is a fight that we shall win.

Mr. Michael Brown: There is a sense of deja vu here today—[HON. MEMBERS: "You."] Indeed. I am speaking, and the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) has spoken. My hon. Friend the Minister hopes to catch your eye later, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) has just spoken. All of us spoke in a debate on 16 December 1980. It is worth our while refreshing our memories about what we said then. It is just as well that few of us ever bother to take the trouble to find out what we said in this Chamber in a particular debate on a particular subject that crops up a decade later. However, I will remind the House of what some of us said then, because there are lessons today for the future of the Scottish steel industry which we can learn by looking back to 10 years ago.
The debate on 16 December 1980 arose because the then chairman of the British Steel Corporation, Mr. Ian MacGregor, laid before the Secretary of State, who presented it to Parliament, a restructuring plan for the steel industry. The House will recall that in those days my constituency was called Brigg and Scunthorpe, and included the town of Scunthorpe, which is now represented by the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley). In those days, one afternoon I received a telephone call from Mr. MacGregor to tell me that he would announce the following day redundancies totalling 4,100 in my constituency alone. Although a great deal of concern was shown about the MacGregor proposals by Opposition Front-Bench Members—and I am glad of that—and although they initiated a debate, when we talked about 4,100 redundancies in one town in England, there was not the type of concern that is being expressed today about Ravenscraig. Although I recognise that it is entirely right and proper for the House to devote itself today to the importance of Ravenscraig and its future, the size of the steel industry in Scunthorpe then was far greater than that in Ravenscraig today. I do not seem to recall receiving the same support when I advocated


enterprise zones, development area status and the rest of it, which I fully acknowledge need to be considered in a debate such as this.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Brown: I think that it is only fair to the House if I press on. I am normally very generous about giving way, but I shall not do so on this occasion because I want to complete my speech fairly quickly.
I am sure that if the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe catches your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, he will rightly and legitimately draw to the attention of the House British Steel's recent announcement about the plate mills in Dalzell and in Scunthorpe, the large town right on my constituency boundary. From the best of intentions, and for the best of reasons, the hon. Gentleman will want to submit to British Steel his case as to why the Scunthorpe mill should not be closed. Ten years ago, I was in exactly the same position that he is in today: I had to face the difficulty of representing a constituency in which large numbers of redundancies had been announced. I would caution him that, although the temptation simply to lobby the company concerned to protect and preserve those jobs is eminently understandable, that is too easy a road to take, and, rightly or wrongly, I resisted that temptation in 1980. In the 1983 general election, my constituency boundaries had changed, so I cannot honestly say that the views that I had expressed in the House were endorsed at that election. I can only point out that a Conservative Member was elected to Glanford and Scunthorpe at the 1983 general election.
I submit that we can do the industry a favour only if we ensure that at all times it answers to profit; that applies as much to the privatised steel industry in 1991 as it did to the nationalised steel industry in 1980. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Oh yes. The industry should answer to profit generated as a result of the demand for its product. Opposition Members make noises, as if to suggest that that assertion is wrong. I remind them that the motion before the House in 1980, which they themselves tabled, mentioned the word "profit". They did not deny—my goodness, how could they deny—the importance of profit.
We must remember that, in 1980, the steel industry came to the House and the taxpayer to ask for £1·7 billion —that being the loss made in that year. The hon. Member for Rotherham sneeringly said that British Steel's recently produced figures showed a massive reduction in its profits. I remind the hon. Gentleman, who spoke in the debate on 16 December 1980, that we were then talking not about a reduction in profit but about the British Steel Corporation losing £50 million every single month of that year. That was the scale of the disaster. Everyone recognised then that, even though the industry was nationalised, its future would be secured only if we got rid of the begging-bowl approach.
It is only fair to draw to the attention of the House the memorandum submitted to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry by the chairman of British Steel which appears in the minutes of evidence. Much criticism has, in my view quite wrongly, fallen upon Sir Bob Scholey, who has done a great job in securing both the well-being of the steel industry in the 1980s and its future for the 1990s.

Mr. Adam Ingram: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Brown: No, I will not give way. I no longer represent a steel constituency, and it would not be fair for me to speak for too long. I want to press on because I want the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe, in particular, to have the opportunity to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The memorandum submitted to the Select Committee by the chairman of British Steel states:
The company … has clear legal and moral responsibilities towards our shareholders for the financial success of the business. That depends absolutely on maintaining international competitiveness. I emphasised this issue in my letter of 14th June to the Secretary of State for Scotland, which was made public, on the reasons for the Company's decision to close the Ravenscraig hot strip mill. I said on that occasion:
'I must first say, and formally, that we live in a highly competitive world in steel and there is a clear sensitivity both in terms of share prices and from the international competition standpoint that prevents British Steel as a private company from disclosing quantitative information relating to matters of a commercial nature, or which are profit-sensitive.'
If we do not succeed in the increasingly competitive international market place we shall fail not only in our responsibilities towards our shareholders, but also towards our employees, for jobs depend totally on the maintenance of a viable business.
That is the bottom line. Whether we are debating the British Steel Corporation in 1980 or British Steel plc in 1991, the only thing that matters is whether British Steel can sell its products and be internationally competitive.

Dr. Bray: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Browne: I am afraid that I will not give way. You know what I am like, Mr. Deputy Speaker: once I go down a highway or byway, I detain the House for a further 10 or 15 minutes, and I am determined not to do that.
I simply want to make this point to hon. Members who have the interests of Ravenscraig at heart, be they Conservative, Liberal or Labour. When I became a Member of Parliament, I represented a constituency in which 20,000 people worked in the steel industry. The Labour Government of 1978–79 could not defend the jobs—even by recourse to the taxpayer, the printing presses and massive public borrowing. Even they sacked 1,700 workers in 1979. It was Labour politicians—specifically the Secretary of State for Industry—who told British Steel that it would have to sack those people.
The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) was right in what he said about the role of the European Commission—whether British steel is in public or private hands. The restructuring that was necessary in 1980–81 was largely the result of the European Coal and Steel Community requirement of the time. From the point of view of policy, the Government recognised that they could not lose £50 million of taxpayers' money. Then, we had a secure future for the steel industry, but steel is always out there in the international marketplace; the industry is always vulnerable to imports, and the extent to which imports are coming into Britain has been mentioned. If the Government have a responsibility, it is to ensure that our products can compete in the international marketplace and that aim can be secured only if the relationship between the pound and other currencies is not allowed unduly to handicap British industry. That is code for


expressing my views on the point that we have reached in the debate about European monetary union and the European monetary system.
If the Government are to assist the steel industry, they must examine once again the relationship between our currency and the German currency. That will give us the opportunity to ensure that our industry is competitive. But we cannot insulate the steel industry from the cold facts of international competition in 1991, any more than we could in 1980. By trying hard, for understandable constituency reasons, to protect, in the short term, part of the steel industry that is simply no longer viable, we shall do the industry a disservice in the long term. In essence, those are the words not of the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes in 1991 but of the hon. Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe in 1980. Those words are engraved on my heart. I remember Labour Members saying then, "You are not representing your constituency." They said that I should simply save an old out-of-date rundown plant. I refused to do that. However, a Conservative Member of Parliament was elected to represent the area at the following general election.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Out of courtesy to my colleagues who are anxious to speak, I intend to be brief. I am particluarly grateful for the references to Gartcosh and to the lessons that we have tried to learn. I am also grateful for the references to the Imperial works, Airdrie, in the constituency of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) because many of my constituents work there. We are very concerned about the consequences of the closures and redundancies at Ravenscraig, Clydesdale and Dalzell and we want the lessons that we have tried to learn from Gartcosh to be relevant to this debate.
We are debating a Select Committee report that made seven recommendations. So far the Government have reluctantly accepted only one—that we should have a debate on the subject today.
We should remind the Government that the consequences of their obsession with privatisation has meant devastation in Monklands and in Strathkelvin. That obsession has cost us much in human terms throughout Lanarkshire and certainly in Motherwell, as the moving speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) testified. In the light of the Select Committee's report, we are entitled to say that the Government cannot simply abdicate their responsibilities. In the absence of the Secretary of State, I shall raise several points with the Minister in the hope that he will respond to them.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East and I believe that the hundreds of people struggling at the Imperial works, as so many did in Ravenscraig and Dalzell, should make their contribution to the steel industry. Their commitment to the industry should not be taken lightly. British Steel is not terribly forthcoming about its accounts and is worried about the £15 million allocated for exceptional items. Does that mean redundancies? What role does British Steel have for Imperial?
The import of tubes into Scotland for the North sea is scandalous. The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) cannot disguise the anger of many people in

Scotland. British Steel is prepared to import 70 per cent of its pipes from Japan, Germany, Italy and France when our people are desperately keen to make a contribution. No one can deny our balance of payments problems, but those imports amount to a £67 million a year loss to the balance of payments. Where is the sense in that? Where is the sense in allowing a small minority of people the right to take decisions that are so crucial to all our people, not just to the shareholders? British Steel is taking decisions which mean that British men, mills and machinery will stand idle. British Steel will not accept the consequences of the decisions that it has taken in Lanarkshire.
What is the answer to what has happened at Gartcosh? The decision was taken more than five years ago. Some people thought at the time that the Freightliner site, which we support today for Mossend, might have been given to Gartcosh and Coatbridge. That has not happened. We have great hopes for the paper recycling plant, as the Minister is aware, but we should see a great deal more energy from Scottish Enterprise to ensure that that becomes a reality.
The announcement—in so far as it was an announcement—in today's Scotsman about site clearance is of the utmost importance to Monklands and Strathkelvin. It seems that the steel masters settled in Lanarkshire, made profits and then disappeared, leaving our local councils and communities with enormous problems especially with regard to site dereliction.
More than 85 per cent. of the derelict land in Lanarkshire is in my district. Twelve per cent. of Monklands is derelict. We cannot deal with such problems on our own. It is profoundly unacceptable, if not immoral, for British Steel to make the kind of statementhat it made this morning. We demand regeneration and British Steel should believe that it has a contribution to make, as should the Government.
The Prime Minister made what he described as a major statement in Perth. The working party estimates that £300 million will be required for the regeneration of Lanarkshire. Only £120 million has been provided so far and most of that has already been allocated—even before we learnt of the Dalzell closure.
We in Lanarkshire, in Monklands and in Strathkelvin, believe that we still have a contribution to make to the economy of Scotland and that no one has the right to prevent us from making that contribution. The spectre of unemployment, deprivation and poverty in Lanarkshire is completely unacceptable. I received a letter recently from a doctor in one of our local health centres. The Minister should be aware of the concerns in Lanarkshire. The doctor wrote:
The answer to heart disease"—
which, incidentally, in Monklands is 3 per cent. above the United Kingdom average—
will not lie with doctors and drugs but with proper public health policy on unemployment, poor housing and the lifestyle of poverty.
Nowhere in the Government's approach so far, including their disgraceful and lukewarm response to the Select Committee's report and their influence on the Lanarkshire working party, have they been prepared to accept the consequences of their free market decisions. Because of that, our determination to fight for what remains of the steel industry and to fight for Lanarkshire and Scotland will remain and will be increasingly apparent.

Mr. Alex Salmond: The Secretary of State for Scotland is seeking refuge in Holyrood palace, but he sent along some court jesters to hold the fort, including the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) and the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn). When the full extent of the Secretary of State's involvement in recent closure decisions in Scottish steel becomes known, he will be seeking refuge in Edinburgh castle, not Holyrood palace. I suspect a tapestry of deceit with regard to Scottish steel from the Conservative party stretching up to and including the Prime Minister's office.
If the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes wants to consider the real pattern of developments in British Steel throughout the 1980s, he need look no further than table 1 of the Select Committee report which charts the investment pattern year after year, throughout the 1980s, when tens of millions, indeed hundreds of millions, of pounds were sent to Teesside, Lackenby, Llanwern and Port Talbot while the Scottish plants were starved of investment.
We have had three Secretaries of State for Scotland during that period—

Mr. Devlin: rose—

Mr. Salmond: No, I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman, who has only just come into the Chamber.
There have been three Secretaries of State for Scotland in that period and each has failed the Scottish people. The right hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) intervened in the early 1980s and received some plaudits in Scotland for, as he put it, "saving Ravenscraig". However, he failed to change British Steel's investment pattern, thus leaving Ravenscraig exposed and vulnerable as the decade wore on.
This time last year, the right hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) was engaged in a public dispute with Robert Scholey, the chairman of British Steel, and was asking for explanations about why the strip mill was to close. However, despite the warnings that were given by hon. Members of all parties about the consequences of delivering unfettered the Scottish steel plants into the hands of their enemies—as a result of privatisation—it was the same right hon. and learned Gentleman who refused to alter the terms of the privatisation to give the Scottish industry even a chance of success in the future. That position was not argued only by the Scottish National party, the Liberal Democrats or by some Labour Members; it was argued also by non-political bodies such as the Scottish Council (Development and Industry). The writing was clearly on the wall when British Steel was delivered into the private hands of an anti-Scottish management.
It is ironic to look back to the speeches that were made by Conservatives, including the Minister responsible for industry in Scotland, arguing that privatisation would strengthen Ravenscraig within British Steel. What empty rhetoric that now looks. What of the seven-year production pledge that was much vaunted as secure during the privatisation? At best, it is meaningless and, at worst, it has given the Scottish steel industry a defined time scale for its death sentence.
However disreputable the performance of the two previous Secretaries of State for Scotland, they cannot

match that of the present Secretary of State. The involvement of the right hon. Member for Ayr was short-term and superficial. The right hon. and learned Member for Pentlands went through the motions and played for time, without having any real effect. However, the right hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Lang) has been engaged in a cynical game of publicly supporting the steel industry while privately capitulating in his meetings with British Steel.
As time is short, I shall give only two examples of the performance of that right hon. Gentleman, who is absent from the Chamber this evening. Page XIV of the Select Committee's report refers to "uncertainty" in British Steel's evidence about why it was refusing to sell the Scottish plant. At one point, it was said that British Steel would not sell the plant because nobody wanted it, but at another point the evidence suggests that British Steel would not sell the plant because nobody wanted it, but at another point the evidence suggests that British Steel would not sell the plant because that would be detrimental to its interests, implying that if any other company had been able to buy it would lose in competition to that entrant company. However, the reason on which British Steel settled was that the Commission would stop such a sale. As Robert Scholey put it, the Commission would be
jumping out of its skin
if British Steel tried to sell Ravenscraig or the other Scottish plants.
The Select Committee dismissed that evidence because of letters to the contrary from the Commission. The Secretary of State for Scotland had even more insight into the evidence because on 25 March he met Sir Leon Brittan, the European Commissioner, and was told not only that the European Commission would not stop the sale of Ravenscraig, but that Robert Scholey himself knew that he had "gone too far" when he appeared before the Select Committee. In other words, the Secretary of State had been told that the chairman of British Steel had acknowledged that his evidence misled the Committee.
One might think that, having been given that information, the Secretary of State for Scotland would return to Scotland, hold a press conference, summon the chairman of British Steel—or be summoned by him—or demand that Robert Scholey be recalled to the Select Committee, but the Secretary of State said nothing for four weeks until the evidence was made public—just as he has said nothing in the past four weeks since he has known about the closure of the Dalzell plate mill.
We now move on to a new phase, in which the Minister responsible for industry in Scotland is very much involved. In April, the Minister released a Scottish Office document supporting the case for investment in Dalzell. That was done with full knowledge of its public implications. If there was any doubt about that, The Sunday Times in Scotland—

Mr. Allan Stewart: It was done specifically in response to a request from the trade unions.

Mr. Salmond: It was done to nail the Minister's flag to the mast of supporting the Dalzell investment. If that was to have any effect, it should have been backed by other action. If there was any doubt about that, The Sunday Times in Scotland, which is hardly a paper against the Conservative interest, could have told the Government about it at the time because it argued:


Unless there is a break with precedent, the Scholey formula of solemnly taking arguments into account, weighing them in the balance, finding them wanting and then failing to say why, will rule the day.
The Minister must have known that his gesture would have no effect unless it was backed by some other action that would put pressure on British Steel.
On 4 June the Secretary of State for Scotland had a private meeting with Bob Scholey. As the right hon. Gentleman is not in his place, we cannot question him about exactly what was said, but I can tell the House his response according to a Scottish Office briefing on the meeting. When told of the closure of the Dalzell plate mill, against the advice of the Scottish Office which was submitted to British Steel, the Secretary of State said:
You know my view that the management of British Steel is entirely a matter for you, subject of course to competition law".
The right hon. Gentleman did not even follow the performance of his predecessor by questioning the decision and arguing that more information should come to light. At that meeting the right hon. Gentleman immediately accepted British Steel's decision. That was on the very same day as the Prime Minister wrote to the Dalzell shop stewards stating his "full support":
The trade union paper, 'The Mill, The Skill, and the Will' and the Scottish Office paper on the single plate strategy demonstrate that the case merits careful appraisal by l3ritish Steel.
Perhaps the Minister will tell us more, but we are expected to believe that, having capitulated immediately to British Steel's decision, the Secretary of State for Scotland ran to No. 10 Downing street but was too late to stop the post, which meant that that public endorsement was sent to the Dalzell shop stewards.

Mr. Dewar: The hon. Gentleman's quotation from the Prime Minister's letter gives a rather misleading impression of what the Prime Minister actually said. He certainly referred to "The Mill, the Skill and the Will" and to the Scottish Office paper on a single plate strategy, but he said:
It demonstrates the case merits careful appraisal by British Steel along with any other options the company may be considering.

Mr. Salmond: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. My point is that the letter was designed to give public support to the Dalzell shop stewards. A full two weeks later, on 19 June—that is two weeks after the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Prime Minister knew about British Steel's decision—on a public platform with the Dalzell shop stewards, the president of the Conservative and Unionist Association argued:
Major's backing of the view is something which I really do not believe that British Steel can afford to ignore.
The public impression was clear—that the Prime Minister's involvement and support would be decisive in helping the Dalzell shop stewards' . case. Privately, however, at his meeting with Bob Scholey, the Secretary of State for Scotland immediately capitulated to British Steel's decision without any questioning or argument, merely saying that it was "entirely a matter" for the company. That is the extent of the Conservative party's treatment of Scotland. The Government publicly support the workers north of the border, while privately selling them down the river in London. That is the Conservative

party's position on the Scottish steel industry. It is little wonder that the Secretary of State was prudent enough to remain at a garden party this evening.
I contest the opinion of the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) that the position is irreversible and that nothing can be done. It is apposite to do so because the many positive and fruitful ideas that have been produced this evening depend on some action being taken to release those assets from the maw and the grip of British Steel. Having given his endorsement to the Dalzell shop stewards, is not the Prime Minister honour-bound to act to secure the release of those assets and allow someone else to run them properly? Is he not honour-bound to follow up his words with actions and stop that exercise of monopoly power?
The Labour party is also on the spot. Earlier, the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) argued that public ownership was not an option under the treaty of Paris. He then went against his own argument by saying that Scottish steel was profitable and productive, which means that it would not be a problem under the terms of the treaty of Paris. If we are to exercise any influence in the decision-making of British Steel, there must be a threat that, unless it stops destroying its Scottish plants, something will be done.
One would have thought that the Labour party would have argued the case for public investment in an industry that is too important to be left in the hands of someone like Robert Scholey. However, the Labour party has made no attempt to examine the issues, and it has not said what it will do if there is a change of Government. Both Ravenscraig and Dalzell are profitable and productive. Even the Scottish Office Minister believes that British Steel would save £300 million by adopting the Dalzell option. That is the figure given in the Scottish Office paper. British Steel owns the assets, but it has no arbitrary authority over them. They were created within the public sector. Billions of pounds of debt were written off before the company went into the private sector. Does British Steel have the right to destroy those assets, despite their production potential?
There is a vital difference between the current closure plans and those that have gone before: a general election will intervene before the closures take effect. There is a clear realisation of the process of destruction in which British Steel has engaged in Scotland. One immediate reaction to the news last Tuesday came from Bishop Joseph Devine of Motherwell, who said on BBC television:
It is quite appalling what has happened here, as one is seeing the systematic dismantling of steel making in Scotland. Why British Steel can still continue to be called British Steel escapes me. It's clearly now English Steel.
The Glasgow Evening Times said:
The politicians, charged with the responsibility of protecting the people of Lanarkshire, have miserably failed them. Margaret Thatcher, George Younger, Malcolm Rifkind, and now John Major and Ian Lang are on that roll of infamy. Labour's heirarchy are no better.
Neil Kinnock even yesterday still couldn't bring himself to back Dalzell because he knows every steel job lost in Scotland —his political power base—is a job safe in Wales or Teesside.
With friends like these, who needs enemies? They are all guilty of watching a crime against the nation being perpetrated—and doing nothing to stop it.


There will be an opportunity at the general election to change the political climate and environment that have allowed British Steel to destroy its Scottish industry. I believe that the Scottish people will take that opportunity.

Mr. Elliot Morley: This debate is supposed to be about the future of the steel industry; it is supposed to be an opportunity to think about where the industry is going. It is fortunate—or, perhaps, unfortunate—that it coincides with the publication of British Steel's annual report, which casts doubt on the future of the two plate mills at Dalzell and Scunthorpe.
I wish to correct a couple of points made by the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown). Although I was not in the House in 1980, I have read the Hansard report of the debate at that time on a motion about the indifference shown towards Britain's manufacturing base, the decline of its industrial base, and the loss of jobs and investment. That motion is as relevant today as it was in 1980 because the Government are still indifferent towards our manufacturing base. That is shown by their attitude towards British Steel.
I do not argue for the retention of the Scunthorpe plate mill. It would make no sense to argue for a plate mill that is becoming obsolescent, that will not be able to meet the new quality standards that will be dictated in European markets, and that cannot embrace the new thin plate technology. Of course, I want the new plate mill investment to come to Scunthorpe, which has a very strong social and economic case for it, but I will not attack other parts of the country where jobs will be affected. I will not be caught up in the divisiveness that the Government often encourage. I believe that the work forces of all the existing steel plants in the country have made enormous sacrifices through increased productivity. All of them are in profit, and all deserve consideration.
As hon. Members would expect, I want to make the case for Scunthorpe. As the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes said, Scunthorpe has had enormous job losses since the early 1980s, when about 20,000 people were employed in the steel industry. The figure is now down to 7,500. In addition to the 500 job losses that will occur if the plate mill closes, it has been announced that some 800 other jobs are to go. There will also be job losses in craft restructuring.
Since the privatisation of British Steel, it has been difficult to obtain information about its plans. I do not criticise the local works manager, who has been helpful. We have a good relationship and we meet regularly. All Members of Parliament have connections with local industry, so we have an idea of what is happening and of the trends. For some months it has been clear that Teesside has been the favoured site for a plate mill, if that investment is confirmed. It is worth emphasising that the report says that any plans for a plate mill will have to be confirmed. Given the economic climate, I suspect that it could be many years before a start is made on a new plate mill at Teesside, yet both Scunthorpe and Dalzell face closure.
This debate should be about more than Scunthorpe and Dalzell; it should be about British Steel and its future plans. Together with other Labour Members, I strongly

opposed privatisation. What have the public—the taxpayers and the local workers—got out of privatisation? Certainly, those who were encouraged to buy shares did not get a great deal because the shares have done very little. I accept that, at the time, it was pointed out that the steel industry is cyclical and prone to booms and slumps. There was tremendous investment in the industry when it was in public ownership, yet when it was privatised debts of almost £5 billion were written off. It was virtually given away, with the benefit of all the public expenditure. Because of that, I believe that the Government have the right to ask British Steel about its plans. They have the right to ask British Steel to show some consideration for the work forces and communities, such as mine in Scunthorpe, who paid for that productivity with their jobs, sometimes with their health, and sometimes even with their lives.
In the end, the judgment on where British Steel is going depends on its investment programme and policy. I find it strange that investment in the Scunthorpe works has been concentrated on the heavy end—the production of liquid steel. Indeed, because of the relining and rebuilding of two of the four blast furnaces, with the rebuilding of a third to come, Scunthorpe is capable of producing an additional 10,000 tonnes of liquid steel.
However, if Scunthorpe loses its plate mill, it will also lose the demand for 14,000 tonnes of liquid steel. We have a steelworks with the capacity for a new plate mill that could be left with an excess capacity of 24,000 tonnes. Where is that excess capacity to go? It cannot go to Teesside; Teesside has an existing commitment relating not only to output of liquid steel for its own use, but to output for the use of other steel works.
As some hon. Members have pointed out, British Steel has a tendency to retrench—to slim down, and to attempt to maximise output while returning to the minimum plant size. Of course, British Steel must operate in a commercial market place, both domestically and abroad. If it slims down and retrenches too much, however, how will it meet demand when it increases, as we hope that it will? Will not imports undermine its market share?
Let me ask two questions. First, will the Minister assure the House that the Government will use what influence they have—I accept that that influence has diminished considerably since privatisation—to press British Steel to ensure that investment is increased, especially "upstream" investment in plants such as the one at Scunthorpe? The history of steel privatisation is not good. When it was first privatised, very little investment went into the plants; the new owners substituted a coat of paint for the purchase of new plant, equipment and technology. Such investment is vital if we are to have a viable steel industry, and to meet strategic and economic needs.
My second point is this. Towns such as Scunthorpe have received some help because of the drastic job losses that they have experienced. Although that help is much appreciated, I emphasise that the Government have a responsibility: ultimately, the downturn in demand is due to their mismanagement of the economy, and their engineering of two recessions in the past decade. They have a duty to help Glanford and Scunthorpe, and other towns in the same position. Local authorities in such towns have had considerable success in attracting new industry and investment; but we are competing increasingly with other parts of the country—and, indeed, with other parts of Europe.
Areas such as Glanford and Scunthorpe have a great deal to offer. My local work force has proved its commitment to British Steel in terms of efficiency. The fact that the Scunthorpe plant holds the national steel production record is a source of great pride to a work force that has devoted so much time and energy to improving productivity. That plant deserves some consideration from British Steel; and, at this time of increasing unemployment, I believe that the Government should give my constituency a degree of priority by means of DTI grants and by working with the local councils that are doing so much to promote Scunthorpe and widen its employment base.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I call Mr. Allan Stewart.

Dr. John Reid: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can you explain how it is in order, in a debate that is primarily concerned with the Clydesdale tube works and the Ravenscraig plant, for the Member of Parliament representing the area involved not to be able to catch your eye?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I realise that the hon. Gentleman is one of a number who have been disappointed this evening. I can only regret that. This is a short debate and, unfortunately, some of the speeches have been too long.

Dr. Reid: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have dealt with the hon. Gentleman's point of order. I suggest that he may find it fruitful to intervene on the Minister's speech.

Dr. Reid: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are wasting time. I call the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland.

Dr. Reid: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have no doubt that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State will give way, as he has always been generous in that regard, but I do not wish to intervene on his speech. I did not ask about other hon. Members who might want to speak; I asked a specific question. How can it be in order for a debate to be held on the subject of the Clydesdale tube works without the local Member of Parliament being able to catch your eye?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I can add nothing to what I have already said.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): I confirm that I shall be glad to give way to the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) if he wishes to intervene at an appropriate point.
I welcome the opportunity to explain the Government's position on the steel industry, particularly in Scotland, and on the measures for the regeneration of Lanarkshire. First, let me pay tribute to the work of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry in investigating the closures in the Scottish steel industry. The House is agreed that the Committee has carried out a thorough investigation, which has given us all a better insight into the background

and implications of those closures. Let me also join other hon. Members in wishing my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Warren) a speedy return to good health and the House.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) rightly set the debate in the framework of the European Coal and Steel Community provisions. He was right to emphasise that not only the Committee's conclusion but the very process of taking evidence, has been illuminating. I shall refer later to what was said by another Committee member, the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther).
A number of hon. Members who have spoken, including the hon. Members for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray), for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) and for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke), represent communities that are directly affected by the plant closures. It was a pity that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar)—somewhat uncharacteristically—began by criticising my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for being absent. Surely he knows that the arrangement has always been for the Secretary of State for Scotland to accompany Her Majesty on official visits to Scotland—just as the Secretary of State for Wales accompanies her in Wales and the Secretary of State for Defence accompanies her on visits to defence establishments.
I address the hon. Member for Garscadden more in sorrow than in anger. However, I entirely reject the allegations of collusion and ill faith made, on the basis of no evidence, by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond). Such allegations by the Scottish National party highlight the difference between its attitude to Scotland's steel problems and that of the Labour party. My impression is that Labour Members have been concerned primarily with jobs, while SNP Members, all too often, have been concerned primarily with headlines.

Mr. Salmond: Was the Minister present at the meeting on 4 June between the Secretary of State for Scotland and the chairman of British Steel? Is it true that, in response to the announcement of the Dalzell closure, the Secretary of State said:
You know my view that the management of British Steel is entirely a matter for you, subject of course to competition law"?

Mr. Stewart: I certainly confirm that I was present at that meeting. Over a long period, the Scottish Office has asked British Steel to consider Dalzell's case, and we presented a paper to British Steel arguing that case. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan alleged that there was some kind of collusion or ill faith in my decision to publish that Scottish Office document. I published it in response to a specific request by the Dalzell trade unions. I held no press conference about it but gave the document to the trade unions so that they could use it as they wished. Therefore, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his allegations.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Salmond: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Stewart: Does the hon. Gentleman withdraw his allegations? I shall not give way—the hon. Gentleman can simply say, "Yes."

Mr. Salmond: Will the Minister answer my second question?

Mr. Stewart: I shall answer it if the hon. Gentleman will give me a moment to do so.
At that meeting with the chairman of British Steel and some of his colleagues, we were told, in total commercial confidentiality, of the decision in relation to Dalzell. We pointed out that we had argued Dalzell's case over a long period, and we expressed extreme disappointment at the news that had been brought to us. We asked for confirmation that the board had fully considered the Scottish Office document, and we were assured that it had carefully considered every option and had come to the conclusion to invest on Teesside.
If the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan is suggesting that we should, somehow, have released that information to the public, that would have been a breach of faith and trust. As for his allegation about the president of the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Association and subsequent statements, he was not at that meeting.

Mr. Salmond: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have specifically asked the Minister twice about the response to Bob Scholey's news—is it correct?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair.

Mr. Stewart: I have already answered that point, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Although no one doubts that the concern of the hon. Member for Garscadden is genuine, when I asked him what he would have done differently in the past year had he been Secretary of State for Scotland, his reply was not convincing. The essence of his reply was that he would have resigned.

Dr. Reid: I shall go back on my word and take the opportunity to intervene on the Minister. The position has been made absolutely clear by my hon. Friends the Members for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) and for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) on numerous occasions. First, there would have been an interventionist Department of Trade and Industry. Secondly, there would have been a strengthened Monopolies and Mergers Commission, to which British Steel would have been taken. Thirdly, there would have been joint ventures with British Steel in new technology, which are legal under both treaties in Europe. Fourthly, research assistance would have been channelled to British Steel in terms of moneys for research and development. Again, that would have been legal under European legislation. I give the Minister merely four or five measures that a Labour Government would have taken in the past two years for Ravenscraig and Clydesdale.
The great tragedy is that Bob Scholey is well aware of what a Labour Government would do had the plants remained. With the prospect of a Labour Government, he has run his timetable one to two years ahead and ordered an army with a scorched earth policy to remove the hot strip mill and the steel works at Clydesdale, so that none of that can be done in a year's time.

Mr. Stewart: Who would have funded that plan? The Government could not have done so because state aid for steel is closely circumscribed by European Community coal and steel regulations. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that a Labour Government would direct the steel industry and force it to invest against its commercial judgment, he

should tell the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) that that will be Labour's policy, so that he can make it clear to the City.

Dr. Reid: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Stewart: No, I must get on with the general debate.
Scotland's steel industry has a long and honourable history. Together with other traditional industries such as shipbuilding and coal mining, it has attracted a deep attachment from the Scottish people. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have emphasised that the workers in the industry have served it well, and it is a matter of deep regret that they do not face a more promising future. However, the factors shaping that future do not lie entirely within the control of the company or the Government. International competition grows ever more intensive. In his positive speech, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) put the matter properly into perspective.
It is true that, since 1981, employment in British Steel and ECSC products has dropped by 45 per cent. But there has been an equivalent drop of 52 per cent. in France, 57 per cent. in Spain and 42 per cent. in the European Community generally. The whole industry has had to readjust to changing circumstances.

Mr. Dewar: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but I should like to make a little more progress.
I emphasise the importance of the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown). British Steel has been transformed from a company that made a loss of nearly £5 million of taxpayers' money a day into a profitable company. Its productivity has also been transformed. It must be right to allow British Steel to compete and to continue to put poor productivity and the subsidies of the past behind it.

Mr. Dewar: Will the Secretary of State explain his policy of asking help from other parts of the Government? I was at a meeting at which the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), when Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, said that his Department was making no efforts to help the campaign to save the Scottish steel industry because it had not been asked to do so by the Scottish Office. It is difficult to understand why, if the Scottish Office is as committed to the campaign as the Minister says, the Department of Trade and Industry—which is responsible for steel—was not being involved in the campaign because the Scottish Office had not specifically asked for its help.

Mr. Stewart: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the policies, statements and representations made by my right hon. Friend and successive Secretaries of State have had the full support of the whole Government.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) was right to emphasise that the work force, faced with the proposal to close the hot strip mill, were entitled to as full an explanation as possible of the basis for that decision. My right hon. Friend and I have continually urged British Steel to release as much information as possible about the company's position, consistent with the need to safeguard commercially sensitive information. We


have continually urged British Steel to consider fully and carefully any potential opportunities that might be identified in relation to their Scottish assets.
The European Community's regional policy and how it relates to the sale of the hot strip mill has been discussed. I would tell the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan that on 25 March Sir Leon Brittan told my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that Sir Robert Scholey had wrongly told the Select Committee that the Commission would object to the sale of the strip mill. The Secretary of State had written to Sir Robert Scholey on 20 March stating:
You suggested earlier that the European Commission would object to that prospect"—
the sale of the hot strip mill—
but I now understand that this is unlikely.
He then went on to ask the chairman of British Steel to reconsider his position in relation to the strip mill.
With regard to the plate strategy, I accept the deep sense of disappointment in Lanarkshire and Scunthorpe at British Steel's announcement on 1 July that the company was to invest in new plate facilities at Teesside. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes was right to say, first, that the rest of that plant did not depend on the plate mill, so there was no reason why the rest of the plant should be affected significantly by the closure of the plate mill; secondly, and more importantly, on the need to be positive. The creation of new jobs requires the development of new products, processes and markets. During the past decade, Scunthorpe has shown just how successfully diversification can be put into practice.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Stewart: No, I do not have time.
I shall turn briefly to the Larnarkshire working group and the remedial measures that have been announced. I believe that those measures have received a good response in Lanarkshire, and that there is a spirit of co-operation and a willingness to try to ensure that they succeed.
I shall outline some of the figures that make up the £120 million which has been mentioned. Some £36 million was the initial allocation of Scottish Enterprise to the Lanarkshire development agency—as recently announced. I thought that the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) made a positive suggestion in relation to the future role of the expertise that has been built up in East Kilbride development corporation, which we are examining. East Kilbride has £26 million. We can add the £28 million from the Department of Trade and Industry, through the iron and steel employees re-adaptation benefit scheme.
Some £5 million extra was given by the Scottish Development Agency for sites purchased in 1991—a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries. There is also the £15 million announced by the Prime Minister, and the £5 million allocated to Scottish Enterprise for

Lanarkshire in 1991–92. Again, picking up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries, there was £4 million for the Lanarkshire development agency for extra training and associated expenses, and the £4 million in extra capital consents to local authorities for factory building.
This is what has been announced so far, and it constitutes a substantial commitment to Lanarkshire. The Secretary of State has made it absolutely clear that Lanarkshire will continue to have a high priority in future public expenditure decisions. We have commissioned a study on the upgrading of the A8 and have undertaken to consider the case for an enterprise zone. We have given a commitment to a new hospital. I believe that there will be a positive response from Lanarkshire to those positive proposals.

Mr. George Robertson: Not enough.

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman suggests that that is not enough, but it is a substantial commitment. I noticed that the Opposition did not promise any extra money under a Labour Government.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: This debate on the whole of the United Kingdom steel industry was triggered by the Select Committee's report. It is clearly a debate that will not conclude tonight, because the events with which it is concerned will not be concluded tonight. The evidence we took only little more than half a year ago about the projections for steel consumption in western Europe in particular have already been vitiated, and it looks as though the costs of reunifying eastern with west Germany will push interest rates still higher, or at least prevent them from falling as we would have wished. Therefore, the problems facing the management of every form of steel production and steel processing plant in western Europe will come under greater pressure. They will not be relieved of difficult decisions by an unexpected improvement in the demand for steel and steel products throughout western Europe.
The present afflictions that are hitting the rest of the world and the political uncertainties now in many of the export markets—Yugoslavia is merely one case in point—are likely to lead to further postponements of investment in the steel industry in particular, because the demand for some of its products is likely to be postponed.
I imagine that the House will want to return to the extremely important subject of what continues to be one of the United Kingdom's most important industries.

The debate was concluded, and the Question necessary to dispose of the proceedings was deferred, pursuant to paragraph (4) of Standing Order No. 52 (Consideration of estimates).

Waiting Lists

[Relevant documents: The First Report from the Health Committee of Session 1990–91 on Public Expenditure on Health Services: Waiting Lists ( House of Commons Paper No. 429–1): the Government Reply to the First Report (Cm. 1586) and the Minutes of Evidence of the Welsh Affairs, Committee of Session 1990–91 ( House of Commons Papers Nos. 390—i to iii).]

CLASS XIII, VOTE I

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a further sum, not exceeding £9,962,627,000, and including a Supplementary Sum of £162,196,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges that will come in course of payments during the year ending on 31st March 1992 for expenditure by the Department of Health on hospital, community health, family health and family health service administration services, and on related services.—[Mrs. Virginia Bottomley.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the next estimate on the Order Paper under class XVI, vote 8:
That a further sum, not exceeding £697,400,000 and including a Supplementary Sum of £10,291,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges that will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1992 for expenditure by the Welsh Office on hospital, community health, family health (part) and family health service administration services and on related services.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am pleased to initiate a debate this evening under class XIII, vote 1 and class XVI, vote 8 on waiting lists in the national health service and to enable the House to debate a report of the Select Committee on Health on waiting lists and waiting times.
Waiting lists for treatment have been a feature of the national health service since its inception in 1948. In a cash-limited system such as the NHS in the United Kingdom, waiting lists represent the main rationalising mechanism for reconciling supply and demand. While actual list sizes are of legitimate concern, not only to the House but to people outside, the more important issue is the time that people have to wait for their treatment. In theory, waiting lists are for only elective, non-emergency cases which are ordered in relation to a doctor's assessment of clinical priority. The lower the priority of an individual's condition, the longer that individual is likely to wait for treatment.
The most recent validated figures from the Department of Health show that at the end of September 1990 almost 750,000 people were waiting for in-patient admissions. In addition, slightly more than 210,000 people were waiting for day case admissions. In my view and that of the Select Committee on Health, strong measures are required to reduce those lists and, more importantly, to reduce the time that people have to wait for treatment.
The figures also show that, of all those waiting for treatment in September 1990, more than 200,000 people had been waiting for more than one year and more than 70,000 had been waiting for two years or more. Those are stark but important statistics.
In its first report since being formally instituted in January this year, the Select Committee on Health described the potential consequences of long waiting times as follows:
People may lose their jobs as they may have to wait longer than their sick pay conditions entitle them to; others may have to give up their jobs to look after a relative who is waiting for an admission; some people may experience a further deterioration of complication in their conditions. This may add to eventual financial cost to the NHS as they may then require even greater levels of medical intervention.
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister for Health properly understands that. The report continues:
People waiting for admissions represent a continuing cost to the health and social services: community nursing visits, prescription charges, sick pay, GPs' time, social support in people's homes all continue as the person waits.
We concluded in paragraph 6:
The human misery and financial cost of long waiting lists is impossible to quantify.
The Committee also found unacceptable variations in the size of lists and in the time that people had to wait for treatment, depending on which region, district, hospital, specialty or consultant a person was referred to. Those variations could not be explained by differences in need between different places. We therefore inquired into the steps that the Government are taking to reduce the size of NHS waiting lists and, more importantly, to reduce the time that people have to wait for treatment.

Mr. Christopher Gill: When my hon. Friend's Committee considered the different factors that might have affected waiting lists in different areas, what investigation did it make into the quality of management in different health authorities?

Mr. Winterton: That is an important point and I hope to answer it in my speech. I am about to refer to it en passant in relation to my area. Perhaps good management has a part to play in reducing waiting lists. I refer first to the Mersey regional health authority. I do not always see eye to eye with its chairman, Sir Donald Wilson, but I must give him full credit for the excellent work that he and his staff in Mersey have done to achieve the lowest waiting lists in the country. He deserves congratulations on that.
I know rather more, however, about Macclesfield health authority than about Mersey. Macclesfield's waiting list record is one of the best in the Mersey region. I pay tribute to the district general manager, Mr. Bill Dobson, and to the chairman of the health authority, Mr. Peter Hayes, who has done an amazing job. I quote from the Macclesfield Express Advertiser:
Health Minister, Mrs. Virginia Bottomley, recently gave Mersey region credit for having done more to reduce its waiting lists than any other region, having no-one waiting more than two years".
In Macclesfield we have gone one step further. According to Mr. Dobson,
'We now have only two people on our waiting lists who have been waiting longer than 18 months and I expect that figure to go down again very soon.' But there is no room for complacency … We should continue to monitor waiting lists closely. Our next target is to have no one who has been on a waiting list for treatment in Macclesfield longer than 12 months.
To return to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill), good management did play an important part in Macclesfield in reducing waiting lists and waiting times, but I would not be allowed to get away with saying that without adding that, possibly in


most areas, additional resources could also make a large contribution to further reductions in waiting lists and times.
I should also pay tribute and express my thanks to our specialist adviser, Dr. Steve Engleman, for his help in this inquiry into waiting lists and times. I am also grateful to our specialist adviser Gregor Henderson who has done exceptionally good work for the Committee. The Committee is also grateful to Mr. John Yates of the university of Birmingham's Inter-Authority Comparisons and Consultancy for his frank and thoughtful evidence to the Committee. I do not think that we have ever been given such competent, informed, and well-researched evidence.
The Government published their reply to our report on Tuesday 2 July, just two days ago. They said in their introduction:
The Committee's report makes a number of helpful comments on how waiting fists and times might be reduced. Most of these are firm policy: others are being considered carefully.
That is encouraging to the Select Committee and we are especially pleased that the Government have accepted 13 of our 22 recommendations.
There are five areas in our report and the Government's reply to it to which I wish to draw the attention of the House. The first I call, "Leaving things to the district health authorities." The Government agree that the validation of waiting lists is a normal part of waiting list management, but in some circumstances extra resources may be required for information systems and clerical support to help some specialties to validate their lists effectively. These extra resources may not be easily identifiable from within a district budget. The Department should therefore give districts support to ensure that the people responsible for validating waiting lists do not start from a disadvantaged position.
We were pleased to see that the Department is encouraging the development of more day case work, but, as we pointed out in the report, a further shift of resources to more day case work will necessitate further strengthening of primary and community health care services. We look to the Department to ensure that its monitoring of health authorities is capable of assessing the implications of the shift to more day case work for primary and community care services.
Similarly, it is not enough to say that health authorities are responsible for the provision and organisation of services to meet the health needs of their resident populations when central help can be provided by the Department to help them in that task. For example, we believe that the Department should investigate the likely cost-effectiveness and impact on services, in both urban and rural areas, of providing out-patient clinics in different specialties in community and primary care settings. We call on the Government to fund assessments of cost-effectiveness in this area and then to disseminate the relevant experiences.
When we visited Huntingdon we found that consultant obstetricians from Hinchingbrooke hospital are conducting out-patient antenatal clinics in GPs' surgeries every week. Other districts can learn from such examples and then apply what is relevant to their local needs.
Districts also need help in dealing with problems caused by the few consultants who, regrettably, do not pull their weight in their national health service work. Everyone is aware of the local effects of that and of the money wasted

if a consultant is suspended while a long inquiry takes place. We recommend that the Department carry out a study to try to determine the influence that private practice in the same unit or specialty has on the time people have to wait for NHS treatment. Unfortunately, the Government rejected that recommendation as they were unsure of what it would achieve. They told us that it is up to the district health authority to ensure that consultants match their service contracts to their job plans. That, however, is a difficult task, since districts hold only consultants' job plans, not their service contracts—they are held by the region. Of course, trust hospitals employ their consultants directly. May I suggest to Ministers that consultants' service contracts in directly managed units be held by the hospitals concerned, not by the regions?
The Select Committee of which we used to be part, the Social Services Select Committee, made that recommendation in more than one of its reports. I reiterate our recommendation that a study be carried out on the influence, if any, of private practice on waiting times. We believe that most doctors would welcome such a study.
I should like to make one further point connected with the Government's reply to our conclusions on the effect of private medical practice. It concerns the Government's choice of words, and I quote from their response:
Management is also responsible for ensuring that private practice does not, to a significant extent, interfere with the performance of the functions of the health service or disadvantage non-paying patients.
Surely that should read "to any extent". I should welcome an assurance on that.
The second area requiring immediate and careful attention is money. The Government rejected our calls for more resources to reduce waiting lists and times. The central allocation of money to this year's waiting list initiative was increased in cash terms in 1991–92 by £2 million—from £33 million to £35 million. Some £25·5 million of that will be paid to regions only if they achieve the targets that they have agreed with the NHS management executive. Regions have also to match the central contribution of £25·5 million pound for pound from their own resources. That effectively removes £25·5 million that could be spent by the regions on other services.
Targets have to be met before any money is paid up front, and there is a chance that central expenditure for 1991–92 on the waiting list initiative will not be as high as last year. An assurance about that would be helpful. Paying money only when targets are met reduces the perverse incentive for specialties to increase their lists to attract more money. It does not make adequate provision for paying money up front to help specialities reduce their lists in the first place.
Our report recommends that some waiting list money should be kept aside to reward good practice. We made that recommendation after hearing the views of Mr. John Yates, whose work in reducing the worst waiting lists has rightly been commended by the Government and the Committee. Mr. Yates thinks that hospitals or specialties should be given an incentive—a good practice bonus for specialties or authorities that keep their lists down. We call that a preventive incentive scheme aimed at preventing waiting lists and waiting times from rising in the first place by rewarding those who manage their specialties effectively.
Sadly, the Government's reply to our report failed to respond to that recommendation and I invite the Minister to respond in her winding-up speech. However, the Government's reply states that they are considering future initiatives for tackling waiting lists and times and their funding. We would welcome clarification about when we will know what those initiatives are and whether they will involve more resources which, as I said earlier, are necessary to deal with the problem. An announcement today about more resources to reduce waiting lists and times would be welcome news not only for the thousands of people on the waiting lists, but for doctors who are constantly required to arbitrate between patients with similar clinical needs, one of whom may be seen the following week while the other cannot be seen for six months or more.
The third main area is that of extra-contractual referrals. I am confident that the hon. Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) will have more to say on that matter if she speaks in the debate. The Committee heard evidence that where there are block contracts between health authorities and provider units and when the health authority has set aside a small reserve for extra-contractual referrals, GPs have a restricted choice about where to send patients.
A new sort of waiting list may be appearing consisting of patients who could be treated immediately outside their districts but who are having to wait for treatment, not because the hospital concerned cannot treat them immediately, but because their district health authority has not kept sufficient money in its back pocket to pay for that treatment in the current financial year. I hope that the NHS reforms will not simply replace one sort of waiting list with another.
The fourth area of concern to the Select Committee is the monitoring of NHS reforms and the information that will be made available. The Government responded to the Committee's concern that close and careful monitoring of the reforms should take place by citing the work of the six NHS sites which are working with the management executive on assessing the local impact of reforms. We all eagerly await some feedback on the lessons to be learnt from Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, Halton in my neck of the woods in Cheshire, St. Helens, Knowsley and Warrington, which is close to my area, Newcastle, Portsmouth, Wandsworth and West Dorset. When will those sites make their first reports to the management executive?
The Committee was pleased to hear about the establishment of a joint NHS review committee with the general medical services committee. However, we are not sure of the purpose and authority of the committee that has been established. Will it monitor and evaluate the reforms, or will it be a forum only for raising and discussing issues that arise from the reforms? If it is to be the former, evaluation implies that a judgment will be made at the end of the exercise on whether the venture has been successful and is worth continuing in its present form. The Select Committee would welcome such an approach.
If that is to be the joint committee's purpose, what resources will be made available to it to enable it to carry out the required monitoring, research and evaluation? Further clarification of the Government's intentions in agreeing to the setting up of the new joint review

committee is needed to give a clear sign that the Government intend to develop a more meaningful relationship with the profession than has been possible in the past.
We were also concerned that information on waiting lists and waiting times should not be restricted to collecting only purchaser-based figures. The Committee viewed that as important and took the view that information on waiting lists and times should continue to be collected and disseminated for each provider unit. If that is not done, how will GPs and, much more importantly, their patients, the clients, be able to compare the waiting times of different hospitals and exercise choice about where to go for treatment? If the Government proceed on the lines that they imply in their reply to our report, the philosophy behind the reforms will be negated by Government action.
The Government say that people should have more choice. However, they must have the proper information on which to base that choice. That is why we need not only purchaser-based figures but provider-based figures. I hope that on mature consideration the Minister and her Department will assure the House that that is the future intention. We hear a great deal and speak a great deal about the Prime Minister's citizens charter and what I have asked the Minister to do is entirely in accordance with the concept of that charter. I hope that in her winding-up speech the Minister will give the Committee and the House the assurances that I seek.
Finally, our report on waiting lists raises the need for a wide and open public debate about what the NHS can and should do. We are worried that the reformed NHS may lead to unplanned changes or inequalities in access to health services. We need to ensure that the NHS continues to deliver a national health service that meets the needs of all our people in a co-ordinated and planned way. We were concerned that the reforms might not succeed in reducing waiting lists and times for treatment to a manageable and reasonable level because of an inability to face the key question of how to meet the demand for services from limited health resources. We were also concerned that the new arrangement of purchasers and providers could lead to the stage at which people were waiting not only for treatment but for money.
The logical outcome of the NHS reforms is that the responsibility for waiting lists will shift from hospitals to general practitioner fund holders and district health authorities. I hope that that does not mean that the period that a patient waits for treatment will be determined solely by the amount of money left in the authority's or general practitioner's kitty. I look to the Government to continue to target their waiting list initiative in such a way that, wherever possible, patients in need of treatment can be promptly admitted to a hospital as a day case or on an in-patient basis as required.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister for Health will consider that the Committee's report is sound and well-researched and that the views that I have expressed on behalf of the Committee are constructive and merit the Government's serious consideration. I hope that I shall receive some reassurances when my hon. Friend contributes to the debate.

8 pm

Mrs. Audrey Wise: When talking about waiting lists, we need to bear in mind exactly what we mean by the term. Waiting list figures are serious enough but there is what might be called a hidden waiting list. As a patient is considered to be on a hospital waiting list after the first visit to a consultant, we ignore the many months that the patient may have waited between the general practitioner's referral and the visit to the consultant. I endorse everything that was said so well and clearly by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), but I sound the warning that waiting-list figures, serious though they are, underestimate the extent of the problem.
General practitioners are aware that there are long waiting lists in certain specialties or in certain areas, and that it may be necessary for a patient to wait a long time to see a consultant for the first time. That can act as a profound disincentive to a GP to make a referral. Once he tells the patient that he wants to send him to a hospital, he knows that that patient will be on tenterhooks while waiting for the visit and wondering what the outcome will be. Accordingly, the GP may be strongly inclined to delay referral, if that is at all possible. That can happen if someone is suffering from cataracts, for example. The temptation not to refer is a strong one.
We should not forget that there are two layers, as it were, before we reach the waiting list proper. I have noticed also that there is a tendency to use the term "elective surgery" as if that means that someone can take it or leave it and that the surgery is an optional extra in someone's life. I fully accept that those who go on waiting lists are not suffering from conditions that require emergency treatment. If someone is knocked over or he or she falls in the street, or is involved in some other accident that requires emergency treatment, he or she will be taken to hospital immediately and treated. We are all extremely proud of the national health service's record in providing that sort of treatment, and grateful for it. However, someone can suffer from a condition that is extremely important to him or her even though it cannot be described as one that requires emergency treatment. The use of the term "elective surgery", the tone in which it is uttered and the context in which it is used, often underestimates the vital part that the appropriate treatment can play in people's lives.
Cataract operations are described as elective surgery, as are hip replacements. People who need the operations to be carried out can languish in waiting lists for a considerable time, during which they can involve various public services in considerable expense. Those who find themselves in that position suffer considerable misery, distress and anxiety. Elective does not mean unimportant.
Waiting lists have been long in the north-west but I am glad to say that there are improvements. However, one or two matters still concern me. I have been reading a document that was published by the regional health authority in March 1991. It contains a column that sets out reductions in waiting lists, which is headed "Waiting Lists Reduced". The document states that the region's total waiting list stands at 87,579. The list has been reduced, but it is still considerable. The document states:
It is an encouraging sign that the majority of these patients have been on the list for less than a year, with 12 per cent. waiting over a year"—
that is more than 10,500—
and only 6 per cent for more than two years.

The word to which I wish to draw attention is "only". When "only" precedes 6 per cent., it means that 5,255 people have been waiting for more than two years. A reference to "only 6 per cent." may give the impression that only a few people are involved, but 5,255 sounds a lot more. If they have been waiting for more than two years, for how long have they been waiting?
A young woman in my constituency—I shall not name her for obvious reasons—has been waiting for surgery since 1984. The term "over two years" can hide a waiting time that is considerably longer than two years. It is significant, however, that the specialty involved is plastic surgery. There are many who choose to think of plastic surgery as an optional extra and as something that is not especially important, and in doing so they often make a grave mistake. The young woman who has been waiting since 1984 wrote to me in the autumn of 1990—she is still waiting—and explained the position. She wrote:
I was assaulted in 1983. My nose was broken. I have recently had an operation on my nose to help me breathe easier as I could not sleep properly at night.
She waited several years for an operation to help her to breathe properly after a criminal assault. Her letter continues:
But I still need plastic surgery on it for my appearance. I am 28 years old now. I do not have a social life as I have lost my confidence due to my nose.
When she saw the plastic surgeon shortly before writing that letter, she was told that she might still have to wait a further three or four years. I think that she is reasonable when she writes:
I think this is ridiculous as I was the innocent party in this assault.
If someone suffers a criminal assault we are all extremely sorry and we wish to see the assailant brought to justice. Surely we have some further responsibility to the victim. It is ridiculous and disgraceful that my constituent has had to wait so many years because she requires plastic surgery. I have now been informed—naturally I am in contact with the health authority about the matter—that it is hoped that she will be seen in the next financial year. That is progress. It is better than three or four years. But I am still deeply distressed on behalf of that young woman.
In the Preston health authority 1,010 people have been waiting for plastic surgery for more than two years. I have given one example. In case people are tempted to think that these are cases where, for example, a person goes along for plastic surgery having been foolish enough to have a tattoo saying "Judy" and is now going out with a young lady called Carol, I remind the House that before those 1,010 people got on the waiting list they had to satisfy their general practitioner that the treatment was necessary and proper for the NHS and they had to satisfy the consultant likewise.
It is reasonable for us to assume that those 1,010 people who have waited more than two years are genuinely waiting for clinically necessary treatment. I deplore any suggestions—they are sometimes made—that because a specialty is plastic surgery it somehow does not matter that there are these outrageous waiting lists.
Extra-contractual referrals have been mentioned and I certainly intend to say a word about them. That issue was raised with the Secretary of State when he was being cross-examined on the Department's spending plans in general. On that occasion I quoted from advice, perhaps better described as instructions, to general practitioners in the Preston health authority area that extra-contractual


referrals could be authorised only after reference to the health authority, and general practitioners were advised that previous consultation about the case was desirable in order to avoid the "embarrassment" of having "to defer or even reject" the extra-contractual referral.
In response to my complaint about that, the Secretary of State said that the clinical judgment of where, when and if to refer a patient remained with the general practitioner. However, he somewhat undermined that welcome statement with the qualification that the health authority might have to defer the referral. Clinical judgment which can be exercised but which can then be deferred by the health authority is the exercise of clinical judgment in theory only and that is no use to any patient. If a patient is referred by a general practitioner outside the health authority's contractual area, that patient wants to have the consultation and the treatment if appropriate. It is no earthly use to that patient if the referral can be deferred, and it may mean deferred indefinitely, by the health authority.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Just today I received a letter from my district health authority's general manager giving me the reason for refusing 18 extra-contractual referrals and one of them was the refusal of a general practitioner referral direct to Leeds for in vitro fertilisation treatment because Calderdale has a contract with Hull. It said that charges can be accepted only if referred through a Calderdale consultant.

Mrs. Wise: I am grateful to my hon. Friend because that is another example from an entirely different area of the restriction of the general practitioner's exercise of his clinical judgment; a refusal to allow a GP to exercise clinical judgment. It is valueless for the Secretary of State to tell general practitioners that these judgments can be made by them if in practice no such thing can happen.
In reply, the Secretary of State said that we are used to waiting lists and that this is simply a waiting list. I find it deeply disturbing that we are contemplating the creation of yet another layer of waiting lists. I hope that the Secretary of State and the Minister for Health will look carefully at this and will not be content with empty words.
We should take care in relation to one of even the Select Committee's recommendations. The Select Committee's recommendations are, as always, excellent, but it has been drawn to my attention, and perhaps to that of other members of the Committee, that recommendation 7 concerning the South Western regional health authority's efforts to replace waiting lists by new arrangements giving all patients booked appointments may have many pitfalls.
Therefore, when recommendation 7 says:
We recommend that the NHS Management Executive study closely the progress of
such efforts, I hope that in doing so they will also study the exact working of such efforts to ensure that they are not just another method of causing problems for general practitioners and their patients.
Recommendation 12 refers to day case work which the Select Committee and the Department think is highly desirable. However, the Select Committee makes the vital point that:
This will necessitate further strengthening of primary health care services and substantial improvements in

community health systems and services to enable people to be discharged from hospital earlier and supported in their own home environment.
One of the things that I am sorriest about is that I see no evidence of any such improvements. We cannot come to a satisfactory solution of waiting list problems or health service problems without carrying out the recommendation contained in that sentence.

Mr. Jerry Hayes: I admire, like and respect the hon. Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise)—I hope that that does not do her political career too much damage —but it is not right for her to say, as she did a moment ago, that there have not been improvements. There have been significant improvements in waiting lists. I will explain to the hon. Lady in a moment where they have been. They have been widespread.

Mrs. Wise: I did not say that there have been no improvements; there have been improvements. I acknowledged that there have been improvements.

Mr. Hayes: I am grateful. I completely misunderstood what the hon. Lady said. I am delighted that she accepts that there have been improvements. It is very easy for Conservative Members to tell people that we are spending more on health than any other Government, which is true; that for the first time we are spending more on health than on defence, which is true; that we are spending about £33 billion per year on health compared with £7·5 billion in 1979, which is true. It is true also that waiting lists increased by 40 per cent. under the last Labour Government and have fallen by 6 per cent. under the present Government. However, that does not cut a lot of ice with our constituents, for whom the measure of the health service is not the amount of money that is spent on it—important though that is—but the treatment that people receive and the relief from pain and suffering that the service provides.
In the eyes of the electorate, the measure of the health service is its success in getting people off the waiting list who should not be on it. All right hon. and hon. Members can tell appalling stories about waiting lists. I await with interest the speech of the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman), who is Labour's health spokesman. How is it that, under every Labour Government, waiting lists increased, whereas they have decreased under every Conservative Government?
The recent April-on-April figures look much better than some of us ever imagined. The number of persons waiting for elective surgery for more than a year has fallen by 19 per cent.; and for longer than two years by more than 39 per cent. That is incredibly good news. People may say that that is not the case in their areas. I hope that it will not be too tedious if I give the figures region by region, because the public should know them.
Those who have been waiting for more than two years for elective surgery in the Northern region has fallen by 47·9 per cent.; in Yorkshire, 18·1 per cent.; Trent, 87·4 per cent.; East Anglian, 24·5 per cent.; North West Thames, 22·3 per cent.; North East Thames, 58·3 per cent.; South East Thames, 30·2 per cent.; South West Thames, 50·1 per cent.; Wessex, 30·2 per cent.; Oxford, 31 per cent.; South Western, 19·8 per cent.; West Midlands, 32 per cent.; North Western, 45·9 per cent.; and Mersey, 100 per cent. Thank goodness one public service in Merseyside is


working—and it is not surprising that the people who run it were appointed by a Conservative Government. However, the polling stations in Walton are just about to close, and no one voting in by-elections pays the slightest attention to what is said in this place anyway.
People should know that there is good news. We always hear good news from my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), who spoke of the great strides forward in his area—which is doubtless partly due to his splendid advocacy. In 1979, the number of people on the waiting list in his constituency was more than 1,000, but the figure today is fewer than 120. That may be rough on the 118 individuals concerned, but it is still a tremendous achievement. Why not give credit where it is due?

Mr. Gareth Wardell: I refer the hon. Gentleman to page 31 of the Select Committee's report, which shows waiting list statistics for in-patient admissions in England in respect of those waiting more than one year. If one compares September 1986 with September 1990, one sees that the figure for the Northern region, for example, increased from 6,426 to 7,264; for East Anglian, from 6,793 to 8,650; and for North West Thames from 10,837 to 12,632. I will not continue, because I might then have to truncate my speech.

Mr. Hayes: The hon. Gentleman may not be called, if he goes on. I was making the point that many more people are being treated under the present Government than ever before. It is good to see a Select Committee report so universally welcomed by the Government. It prompted so many responses of "agree" and "entirely agree" that I could not believe my ears. If there is good management, and if funds are used properly, waiting lists can be significantly reduced.
I was delighted to see from the Government's response that clerical validation, which is an aspect to which more thought ought to be given, has increased by 52 per cent. We can do better than that. In his evidence to the Committee, Duncan Nichol said:
I was talking this morning with general practitioners in Oxford; they had secured their waiting lists from the hospitals, got their patients who were currently waiting back in front of them and they had gone through this list and removed 34 per cent. of the patients that they knew did not require to be on that waiting list.
That is a remarkable reduction. Validation should be not just 52 per cent. but 100 per cent. Inter-Authority Comparisons and Consultancy wrote:
Some of the failures to validate lists properly almost defy belief. When the largest single surgical list in the country was validated in 1989, 4,000 were written to from that one specialty alone. One half of the patients did not reply at all and a further 450 patients asked to be removed from the waiting list. By the time the validation was completed only 35 per cent. of those written to remained on the list. In another specialty all general surgical patients were written to in two successive years and on both occasions all the patients who failed to reply were left on the waiting list.
An enormous amount of work remains to be done on that aspect. It may be boring, painstaking and clerical work, but it must be done.
The fact remains that national health patients are operated upon far more quickly than in the past. I am delighted that the Government are spending more money, and I am sure that all right hon. and hon. Members share my view.
In today's issue of The Independent, its political correspondent, Nicholas Timmins, who is an expert on health matters, writes that the Government are to cease publication of hospital waiting lists. No doubt the hon. Member for Peckham will say that that is because the waiting lists are so rotten and miserable. The truth is that far more information about waiting lists is to be given by the Government than ever before. Mr. Timmins knows a great deal about health matters, and I do not mean to be difficult, but I refer him to the final paragraph of the Government's response:
We shall continue to publish waiting list and time figures, as we have done since 1984. In the short term, figures will be published on both a provider basis, as now, and on a purchaser basis. In future, we will publish purchaser-based figures, as these will reveal health authorities' performance in purchasing early treatment for their local populations.
The hon. Member for Peckham is always announcing new policies, but she may be afraid that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary will cost them. On the other hand, we hear from Labour that it will not spend more money on the health service. Nevertheless, we want to hear what the hon. Lady has to say about how Labour will reduce waiting lists, and improve hospital efficiency and management.
In health care today, money travels with the patient. For the first time, hospitals will have an incentive to produce effective, quality contracts, and to perform operations as quickly as they can. There will be a financial incentive for not just health service trust hospitals—which will be opting out of nothing except bureaucracy—but all others to publish the maximum information, so that the public can make the right choice. We know that the Opposition do not believe in choice, unless it is choice for a little more money for NUPE and COHSE and £175 million for the minimum wage for the NHS. All that will not help patient care [Interruption] The hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) suggests that I should get on with it. He is right. He talks a lot of common sense some of the time. I should not be too unkind to the hon. Member for Peckham. She will have the opportunity to put her case. It is nonsense to say that there will be insufficient information—quite the opposite.
While I am on the question of national health service trust hospitals, I hope that the hon. Member for Peckham will have the grace to say that all the talk about profits before patients and all the talk just about profits is not true. She was a member of the Standing Committee that considered the National Health Service and Community Care Bill which is now an Act. She knows that it is unlawful for any NHS trust hospital to make a profit. I hope that, once and for all, she will have the grace to put the record straight.
As for the publication of information, the Audit Commission has done a fantastic job. All the members of the Select Committee were very impressed by the evidence it gave us. Within one year, it has produced a health and financial profile for every single district. I should like the Government to consider carefully the fact that these profiles are not in the public domain. They should be. The Audit Commission put forward all sorts of ways in which the national health service could use its resources far more efficiently. Many of the Select Committee members would like the Audit Commission to extend the scope of its investigation into the national health service.
Our report referred to the importance of day surgery. The Select Committee has just returned from Sweden. The


hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye has one of those looks that suggests something that did not happen. It was a perfectly respectable and sensible visit to Sweden.
We visited one of the finest hospitals that Sweden, and Stockholm, has to offer. The members of the Select Committee found in that plush hospital that the walls were almost lined with money. It should not be forgotten that we were in a socialist mecca. Lots of patients were being treated; there were hardly any waiting lists; there was an air of hushed excitement and expectancy among administrators and doctors; they were treating more and more people.
We said "What's the secret of your success?" "Actually," we were told, "we have removed one tier of management—the politicians; we have got rid of them. We have brought in industrialists to help to run our hospitals." "Oh," said some of the members of the Committee, "how very interesting." "Also," said the administrator, who is also a professor, "we are going to be in competition with other hospitals. You know what?" he said: "it's very exciting; we're going to have to work to a budget." We realised, in this mecca of socialism, that the finest hospital in Stockholm and in Sweden was effectively a national health service trust hospital. It was only nine months behind the reforms that this Government have introduced.
One of the members of the Select Committee said, "This is a spotlessly clean hospital; you must employ lots of people to keep it clean." "No," said the administrator, "We put all that out to private tender some time ago." If that is good enough for socialist Sweden, it is good enough for us. Despite all the problems, the Government have nothing to be ashamed about in waiting lists. We need a little bit more money to reduce them, but the figures that have been published are very good news.
It is also good news that, at last, the British Medical Association is beginning to appreciate that many doctors are queuing up to become fund holders. That is why there has been a change of mood. NHS administrators are beginning to realise that these reforms are very good. At trust hospitals such as Guy's, doctors and nurses are treating more and more patients than ever before. That is what the reforms are all about. I hope that we shall hear about what the Labour party intends to do.

Ms. Harriet Harman: I intend to concentrate on the excellent report that the Select Committee has produced and on the Government's response to it. This is an important debate. The Committee produced an important and weighty report. I welcome the chance to debate it. I welcome also what was said by way of introduction by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), the Committee's Chairman, who was supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise). The fact that they chose the waiting list issue for their first report shows a sharp sense of priorities. Waiting times are the major source of complaint.
Most people are happy with the care that is provided by the NHS. They have great affection for it and they support it. However, people are very worried about waiting times. The hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes) thinks that it is just a clerical or a statistical issue. He produced loads of statistical and clerical figures in an effort to suggest that

this is all a figment of our imagination. Whatever the figures may suggest, if one goes into the orthopaedic ward of any hospital and talks to the people there, following surgery, they say, "Thank goodness I've had my operation. Yes, I'm getting on really well and beginning to look forward to the future, but it has been the most terrible thing to have to wait for my operation." Then out pour stories of family relationships broken, of the husband having to move into another bedroom because his wife has been unable to sleep for month after month and therefore argues with the children, of someone who has lost his job because he has been off work sick for so long waiting for his operation that he feels, when the firm hits hard times, that he cannot stand in the way of others who might be made redundant if he does not stand down from the firm.

Mrs. Mahon: The one statistic that the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes) did not give was the number of people who had been in so much pain that they decided to pay for a hip operation. It would have been interesting if he had referred to every district and said how many people had been forced by pain to pay thousands of pounds for a hip operation.

Ms. Harman: My hon. Friend has made a very important point that I was about to make. We are talking not just about statistics but about people who are waiting in pain for their operations, about people who lose their jobs because they cannot get around and also about people who become immobile, even when they have had their operations, because they had to wait for it for so long. They never made the complete recovery that they would have made if they had had their operations when they needed them. I support the point made by the hon. Member for Macclesfield in the Committee's report, that
the human misery and financial cost of long waiting lists are impossible to quantify.
That is the starting point to which we must continue to return.
In addition to the pain, misery and financial cost of long waiting times for individual patients, there is also anger that, having paid their national insurance and taxes, the national health service was not there when they needed it. There is also bitterness because people know that, if they could go private, they could be treated the following week and would not have to wait. It is not fair that only those who can pay again, having already paid through their national insurance and taxes, should get the treatment when they need it.
As the hon. Member for Macclesfield said, it is inefficient to treat people long after they need their operations. We should think of the work and the time that is lost to industry, and of the fact that an operation often needs to be larger if it is delayed—for example, hip operations. We should also think of the people who, after waiting immobile for a year and a half, never really get the courage to re-enter life in the outside word, even after they have had their operation and have regained their physical mobility. That recognition of the cost of long waiting lists is one of the reasons why so many employers offer health insurance to their employees. It is not as a perk to their staff, but because they cannot afford to have their employees off sick for a long time while they wait for operations.
About 93 per cent. of the people on waiting lists are classed as non-urgent cases, but we should not be complacent. I reinforce what was said by my hon. Friend


the Member for Preston about calling it "elective surgery". We are referring to people waiting with failing eyesight for cataract operations or those who are waiting for hip replacements. The idea of non-urgency is a strictly medical definition about whether someone is likely to die, rather than whether he needs the surgery. Doctors are not gung-ho about surgery. People are not put on to a list unless they need an operation. An operation is always a significant step for the individual, quite apart from the background of a lack of resources or beds. People are not put on lists without a second thought.
The numbers waiting more than two years have dropped, but worryingly the numbers waiting for more than a year have increased from 161,326, to 172,025. The problem of waiting is endemic. It is not a question just of local efficiency—of some areas not getting their act together—or of a lack of information—that if only people knew where to go to get the operation matters would improve. As the figures in the report show, 23 per cent. of people are waiting for more than a year. The problem does not affect only in-patients; day and out-patients are also waiting for treatment.
Part of the Government's response is to imply that there is a lack of information, and that if there was more information about where people could get treatment quickly they would travel there and there would be less of a problem. The College of Health initiative—the national waiting list help line—shows, not surprisingly, that most of the calls are from people who need operations for which there are long waits in all areas. From the figures, we can see that about half the calls were from orthopaedic patients, most of whom were waiting for hip or knee replacements. Incidentally, a great many people were not able to get through when the lines were first opened because the lines were jammed. The next largest group were waiting for general surgery, such as hernia operations. After that came those wanting cataract operations and then those waiting for ear, nose and throat services, such as grommets for children with hearing problems.
Faced with so many people calling about general surgery or orthopaedic services, it is worth examining the waiting lists for those services to see whether the problem can be dealt with by simply shifting patients from one area with long waiting lists to another area where there are not. The statistical section of the Library has kindly gone through the figures for me. If we examine the waiting lists for general surgery, trauma and orthopaedics, district by district, we see that all the districts have waiting lists. Large numbers of people are waiting for the same operation in every part of the country.

Mr. David Amess: rose—

Ms. Harman: Perhaps the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) would like to know the figures for Basildon district health authority. It has a waiting list for general surgery, and for trauma and orthopaedics. If his constituents want to travel to find a place where they might find no waiting lists for those services, perhaps we cart hear from him, an advocate of the free market, where they can go to escape those waiting lists.

Mr. Amess: I thank the hon. Lady for that generous billing. I hope that when I catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall be able to talk about Basildon. I have been following the hon. Lady's speech carefully. I know that she

is anxious to make progress, and to tell the House how Labour party policy will address the gloomy situation that she is describing. How much extra money has the Labour party pledged to spend on the national health service, especially on hospital waiting lists? Could she give us that information a jump ahead in her speech?

Ms. Harman: I said from the outset that I would address myself to the report of the Select Committee and to the Government's response. I should be grateful if I could be allowed to carry on with my comments in that vein.
The Government's response is to imply that the problem is simply one of people not knowing where there are no waiting lists and that if people had the information and could ring the helpline, they could go where there were no waiting lists. I hope that the Minister will admit that for the things that the people are ringing up the helpline for there are waiting lists in all areas. The idea for them simply to travel is not possible. It will be a shame if the Government get into the business of raising people's hopes by saying that all that they need to do is to make a telephone call or a train journey, and the problem will be solved. It is deeper than that—the problem is endemic.
As has been pointed out, the problem will be that there will be less information as a result of the Government's intention to change the way in which waiting list information is collected. There will be less information about where the waiting lists are shorter. John Yates, commenting on the revelation that the Government are to change the way in which waiting lists information is collected, said in The Independent today:
These changes undermine the Government's own reforms. If health authorities and fund-holders want to shop around for the shortest wait, they need to know how long the wait is at hospitals with which they don't have contracts.
The Government have acknowledged that there is a problem with waiting lists. We need to have information on which to assess the position. The Government have admitted that there is a problem, yet they are ending the means by which we can measure progress. Not only are they ending the means by which they say that people can travel to where waiting lists are shorter, but they are ending our opportunity to compare year by year whether improvements are being made, or whether the position is getting worse.
The hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes) said that hospitals will publish their waiting lists. I hope that we shall have a more sophisticated response from the Minister because she will know that hospitals selectively publishing what they want to do as part of their sales patter is not the same as national Government responsibility for collecting information from all hospitals—those that want to reveal the information as well as those that do not. We cannot simply use information from an ad hoc marketing strategy as a substitute for nationally collected data, which we need to compare year on year. It is a cynical attempt to break the opportunity to compare because the Government think that things will get worse.

Mr. Alistair Burt: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ms. Harman: No, because I hope that I shall come to the problem that the hon. Gentleman seeks to address later in my speech.
Does the Minister really think that the problem is that people do not know where the treatment is and that, if they did, they could simply travel to it?
The other assumption lurking behind the Government's relaxed, laid-back complacency is that we are talking merely about inefficiency at local level and that, if we beef up the management, everything will be all right. They say, "Everyone should model themselves on the best, and the best have managed to crack the problem. If the problem has not been sorted out, there is clearly a problem with management at local level"—or "the bureaucrats", as I understand the Secretary of State now calls them.
A group of south London Members went to see the Under-Secretary about King's College hospital, which had 120 of its beds cut in the last financial year. People are having to wait longer for operations and people are even having to wait in the accident and emergency department because there are simply not enough beds available for them to be admitted to hospital even as emergencies. The Minister said, "King's cannot have the money to reopen its beds. The length of stay is too long." He took no account of the number of people in that hospital who cannot be discharged because the support services simply are not there.
The point that the Select Committee made in its report is critical not just because of the moves to day care and the placing of greater emphasis on out-patient treatment but because we need an effective and appropriate use of in-patient beds. We all know that some people are ditched out of hospital and suffer because the necessary support services are lacking. Others remain in hospital because they simply cannot be discharged. The hospital social workers at King's told me of a patient on an orthopaedic ward who was desperate to go home. He was growing -depressed because, although he had been officially discharged over a month before, he could not go home: the hospital simply could not arrange the necessary support services; there was simply not enough care and support available in the community.
In their response, the Government dealt with the matter in a narrow and shallow way. They said, "We expect health services and family health service authorities to take account of any increase in day case work when planning primary and community health services." That is not good enough, given that the support services are insufficient to allow people to be discharged when they need to be, let alone to cope with the welcome shift away from in-patient treatment to day-patient treatment. I hope that the Minister will show that she recognises the problem that already exists—quite apart from the growing problem. We are talking not just about the community nursing, psychiatric and chiropody services but about home helps, care assistants and all the other support services which should be there to enable the hospitals to do hospital work and people to be cared for in the community thereafter.
Even if travelling were the way to deal with the problem—if people could get an away-day ticket to the magical place where there is no waiting list— the Government should not be urging people in that direction. I thought that it was the Government's view—I thought there was a consensus—that treatment should be as locally based as possible so that, if there were post-operative complications, the patient would have an easy trip back to

the person who had done the operation, to facilitate visiting and so that the patient could be discharged as early as possible because there was a close connection between the hospital and the community services. I do not accept the idea that people can get the information and then travel around but, even if I did, I would still be asking whether that is really the direction in which we should be going, especially as the operations for which there are long waiting lists—hip replacements and cataract removals—are mostly performed on elderly people who are the last people who should be shoved on a train and told to go somewhere else, even with the money following them.
The trouble is that the money will not be following the patient. When people rang the College of Health on the helpline to ask where the shortest waiting times were, they were asked, "Do you have a fund-holding GP, or are you one of the 90 per cent. who do not, because if you are, and if we suggest that you go to a hospital miles away from where you live, you may not be able to get financial approval from your district health authority for the referral."
The problem is not just that there are waiting lists in all parts of the country and not just that people should not be forced to travel. The Government's reforms and the internal market will make it more difficult for people to cross boundaries for their treatment.

Mr. Hayes: No.

Ms. Harman: The hon. Gentleman says no. The point was well made by my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, who explained that the money for extracontractual referral is already running out and that the contract referral pattern sets in concrete existing local referrals. There are not contracts all over the place, so people are looking for extracontractual referrals and the budgets are already running out.
The Government have failed to solve the problem of waiting lists. We should bear in mind the fact that they have been the Government for 12 years. I hope that, instead of making cheap, party-political points about the unions, as the hon. Member for Harlow did, the Minister will deal with her own Government's record and with the important points made by the Select Committee.
There are three fundamental reasons why the Government have failed to deal with the problem of waiting lists. The first element is lack of political will. Although I do not believe this of the Minister, there are many in her party who would be happy to see NHS waiting lists grow because they know that that is the biggest boost that they can give to the private sector, and that affects the political climate in which the hon. Lady has to work. The No Turning Back group has made it clear that it wants the national health service to be reduced to an accident and emergency service and that it does not think it appropriate for elective surgery to be undertaken by the health service. I do not accuse the Minister of holding that view. She is one of the more reasonable members of the Government. Nevertheless, it is part of the political background against which we must measure the Government's failure to deal with the problem of waiting lists.
The second element in that failure is a failure also to face the underfunding that lies at the root of the problem. As long as the Government talk about clerical audit of the


waiting lists, administrative changes and management, we know that they are ducking the issue and not providing enough resources.

Mr. Hayes: No.

Ms. Harman: John Yates himself recognised the importance of resourcing adequate services to meet demand. Clearly, the hon. Gentleman has not read his Committee's report.
The third element in the Government's failure to solve the problem is that at national, regional and local level, the national health service has been diverted away from the task of dealing with waiting lists and towards other tasks —commercialisation of services, opting out, the internal market and GP budget-holding. What are they talking about at every health authority unit general managers' meeting? Are they talking about reducing the waiting list? No, they are talking about how on earth they will cope with the administrative changes forced on a reluctant British people by the Government.
If the Government cannot acknowledge the great diversion of energy, effort and resources that the NHS reforms have entailed, and if they cannot acknowledge that that has prevented the NHS from dealing with the problems with which everyone wants it to deal, they are failing—and will continue to fail—to address the issues that the Select Committee has so sensibly and seriously put before the House.

Mr. Alistair Burt: I. am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) who finally reached the meat of the issue for some of us—although not all of us—when she referred to the reasons why she believed that the Government could not deal with the problem of waiting lists. If I remember correctly, her second point related to the underfunding of the health service. At that point 1, like many other hon. Members, was waiting for the hon. Lady to announce the figure by which she considers the health service to be underfunded and for her commitment to restore that funding under a future Labour Government. I waited for that information with bated breath, but there was nothing and 1 was not surprised about that.
The idea that the national health service is somehow safer with Labour is one of the longest running deceits in British politics. With no experience of reducing waiting lists and with no pledge to increase resources for the NHS, how does the hon. Member for Peckham expect to tackle the problem of waiting lists? We heard no answers tonight.
Once again a serious debate on the NHS has resolved itself to its component parts. While we heard the rhetoric from Opposition Members about their commitment to the health service, the facts make their commitment just an idle boast. It must be rather depressing for them. Whether on the number of staff employed, on capital expenditure or patients treated—whatever the form of level playing field or horizontal operating table upon which the debate is to be conducted—the Opposition always come out second best. On this occasion, they have chosen the Select Committee's report on waiting lists to make their point.
I pay tribute to the Select Committee for the way in which it went about its task. We all care about waiting lists. My background in the health service is that I am the son of an NHS general practitioner. My brother works in

the hospital service. I am a member of the NHS and of no other health care plan. I have a very close association with the hospitals in my area where I was born and brought up. 1 need no lectures on commitment to the health service from Opposition Members.
Hon. Members on all sides of the House share a commitment to reducing waiting lists. We recognise what the hon. Member for Peckham said, that behind each statistic there is a human story because no one would voluntarily wish to be on a waiting list. People are put on waiting lists because they are ill and something needs to be done. They would rather not be on one.
However, a waiting list does not tell the whole story. It is an indicator of the service provided through the NHS, but it is not the only indicator. For example, waiting lists do not tell us much about the remarkable stories of medical advance that now enable people to receive treatment that was undreamed of barely a decade ago. With regard to heart operations and hip replacements, new waiting lists are created as a result of medical expertise for which we should all be enormously grateful.
Waiting lists do not tell the full story about the efficiency of health authorities and how many people are actually treated. The hon. Member for Peckham did not mention the significant increase in the number of patients treated—both in-patients and day cases—under this Government. That is surely the bottom line for the health service—not beds, or waiting lists, but the actual number of people treated. That is the point at which the human stories of pain and suffering are dealt with. We hear too little of the successes of the health service from Opposition Members and too much about problems which they have no idea how to tackle.
I am pleased about the way in which the Government have dealt with the problem identd by the Select Committee and have tried to tackle waiting lists. I want to refer to several parts of the Government's national programme to tackle that problem.
The special management teams that were sent in to investigate the worst lists halved the number waiting more than one year in 43 long lists in 1989–90. Provisional figures for 1990–91 show that they reduced long waits in the worst 100 lists by 36 per cent. Those are not simply statistics—there is a human case behind each one.
The special waiting list fund of £190 million over the four years 1987–88 to 1990–91 has helped health authorities to treat more than 300,000 extra in-patients and day cases and more than 200,000 out-patients from waiting lists.
The special team led by John Yates, which the Government acknowledged and expected would do its work more efficiently than some health authorities, has had a profound effect on identifying and dealing with the problems. I pay tribute to the Government's work in tackling those problems and to the identification and acknowledgement given to them in the Select Committee's report.
We all want to concentrate on our own areas. That is where we see the health service in practice most often. We can deal with global and national statistics as much as we like, but what is really important is what is happening in our own back yards. In that respect, I draw the attention of the House to paragraph 49 of the Select Committee's report which deals with improved management and co-operation with clinicians. That paragraph deals with the importance of management and staff getting together to cut down waiting lists and to deal with the problems.
Paragraph 51 contains an encouraging quotation from Mr. Edwards of Trent regional health authority who, referring to the conversations that are now being held between administrators and doctors, asks:
'How can we together manage this important part of our business?' This is the first time this has happened in 30 years, and for me this is one of the most exciting bits of the new world [the NHS reforms]; managers and doctors getting together to share a view about the way forward.
In no other district has that spirit, which is wanted and desired by both the Select Committee and the Government, been put into practice to more effect than in my own authority of Bury, and I pay tribute to Bury district health authority for that.
I shall first give some statistics about Bury's waiting lists and then say how it has tackled them and how that work might be affected by future policies. We want to talk about waiting lists—and this is Bury's story. The hon. Member for Peckham said that there was no district health authority in the country that did not have a waiting list for general surgery. She is wrong—there is mine. In 1989, 86 per cent. of patients for general surgery waited less than three months. In 1990–91, no patient waited for more than three months for general surgery. The hon. Lady might say that a wait of nought to three months is still a waiting list, and that is fine, if that is what she wishes to do, but to most people the fact that no patient has waited longer than three months for general surgery means that there is no waiting list.
In 1989, 84 per cent. of ear, nose and throat patients waited less than 12 months, with 30 patients waiting more than a year. In 1991, that had improved to 98 per cent. of patients waiting less than 12 months, with only seven waiting between one and two years and none waiting more than two years. In the three years 1988–91, between 99 and 100 per cent. of orthopaedic patients waited less than two years and there was a decrease in the number of people waiting for more than 12 months, from 49 in 1989 to only three in 1991. In oral surgery, between 1989 and 1990, 100 per cent. of patients waited less than three months. Again, I submit that that is no waiting list. In 1991, only one patient waited between three and six months while the rest waited less than three months. In 1989, 97 per cent. of gynaecology patients waited less than 12 months, with nine patients waiting for more than a year. In 1990–91, there was a further improvement, with no one waiting for more than 12 months.
That is the record of just one district—Bury district health authority in the north-west. I submit that those statistics on waiting lists would stand comparison with figures anywhere in the world. The way in which those statistics have been achieved is worthy of comment because that is what is at the heart of paragraph 49 of the report, which deals with the improved co-operation between administrators and doctors. That is what has happened in my district in the past decade or so.
How has the district achieved that? First, it has been committed to reform—to the sort of reforms that are now being discussed as possible ways forward. Bury district health authority has always been open to following through any reforms in an effort to try to improve its service. Secondly, there has been a commitment to competitive tendering to which I shall return later. In Bury, 17 services have been put out to competitive tender,

resulting in savings of hundreds of thousands of pounds for the health authority each and every year, which might stand to be lost in the future. I should be interested to hear the hon. Member for Peckham explain how that shortfall might be made up if competitive tendering ends.
However, more important than those two matters and the statistics is the way in which Bury health authority has managed its services because that is the key to how it has been able to treat more patients and why it has fewer waiting lists. First, there has been an increase of 43 per cent. in the number of doctors employed. Additional consultants have been appointed, all in the specialties where waiting lists have been reduced in accident and emergency services; anaesthetics; paediatrics; obstetrics and gynaecology; radiology; geriatrics; psychiatry; pathology; ear, nose and throat; adult health and orthopaedics. These are not just statistics—real doctors have been appointed. Our waiting lists have fallen because our health authority has had the funds to employ them.
Secondly, we in Bury have been able to commit £25 million to capital expenditure in the past few years to provide the facilities for the operations that will help us to reduce waiting lists. Some of that money has been provided through savings on the health authorities' own resources—achieved by such things as competitive tendering. The savings have not just been a nebulous figure that has somehow gone into somebody's pocket; they have been used for a new obstetrics unit so that more people can be treated and the waiting lists can be reduced.
In 1978–79, some 17,780 in-patients were treated and there were 1,575 day cases. The latest figures show an increase to 26,700 in-patients and 4,100 day cases. That represents a total increase over 10 years of 55 per cent. in the number of in-patients, and 160 per cent. in the number of day cases treated. If the Government and the Select Committee want waiting lists to be reduced, the way is through co-operation between the doctors and the administrators in health authorities, such as happens in Bury. Our policies, together with the attention being paid to waiting lists during the past few years, are doing the job. The Conservative party has ideas, facts, statistics and achievements. All we hear from the hon. Member for Peckham is criticism—not a single idea about how to deal with the problems that we are tackling.
I worry about the future, and about what will happen if the policies that we have put into effect were no longer followed. If the economy cannot provide the growth which it has provided over the past 10 years, and which has allowed expenditure in our health authorities to rise by 19 per cent.—under the previous Labour Government NHS spending in Bury fell by 2 per cent.—my constituents would he badly disadvantaged and waiting lists would rise again. I do not want my constituents to face that risk.
The abolition of competitive tendering would mean the loss of hundreds of thousands of pounds for my health authority, and I see no commitment to make up that loss. Whose waiting lists would rise first to deal with that change in policy? Such facts and figures make a compelling case for what we are doing to tackle waiting lists. We do not have just rhetoric; we have achievements, determination and a commitment to the health service that I suspect Labour Members only dream about. They wish that they could actually deliver what they say, but they know that only the Conservative party can do that.
On waiting lists, on the Select Committee report, and on the way in which problems are tackled, only the


Conservative party shows the determination and the commitment to deal with the human casualties behind the statistics. That is far better than the empty rhetoric that we hear from Labour Members.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: I shall be brief. I echo the congratulations to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), the Chairman of the Select Committee, and his colleagues on their excellent report on this important matter. The hon. Gentleman opened the debate in splendid fashion and he set the parameters very effectively. For a moment, I thought that he had found the whole debate so moving that he had crossed the Floor of the House, but I see that he has now returned to his usual lair.
It is understandable that in such a debate there should be claims and counterclaims about what is happening in the NHS and about its health or otherwise. However, in discussing waiting lists we would do well to remember what Mr. Yates said in his evidence to the Committee. That was fairly reproduced on page ix of the report, which stated:
Two issues emerge from his replies. The first was his concern that a large amount of public money had been spent on attempting to reduce the numbers of people waiting over a year for treatment, only to see the numbers rise.
It is worth bearing in mind that rather basic point when listening to some of the claims that are made, not least those of the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt).
Mr. Yates told the Committee:
I have been concerned about its … failure"—
that is, the failure of the waiting list initiative—
in terms of delivering the goods in terms of what was expected … in the first three years it has been somewhat of a disappointment to see that the Department of Health investment of (£80·6 million) has led to a rise in the generally accepted measure to waiting time, the number of long wait patients, waiting over a year.
That is not much of a success story—and it came from the man who was in charge of trying to deliver an improved service and who, indeed, went a long way towards achieving that.
The Committee mentioned the need for a good, high-quality flow of information. That is certainly crucial. As I have said in other health debates, I am worried about what will happen under the new arrangements—an internal market, self-governing trusts, GP budget-holding and so forth. Although finance has been made available, I do not think that the computer technology is advanced enough for, in particular, the big hospitals to be able to evaluate their own information systems as professionally as they do now. They could have an important effect on waiting lists.
I am glad that the Committee, in dealing with developments in the primary-care sector, drew attention specifically to the contrast between rural and urban needs. Because I represent a vast rural area, I am especially conscious of that distinction. There is no doubt, however, that that blanket or blueprint approach should not be adopted to that important function of the health service; the position in, for instance, the Scottish highlands is not the same as the position in one of our cities. IF am encouraged to note that the Government have responded positively to what the Committee said.
Let me echo what was said by the hon. Member for Macclesfield by quoting from point 15 of the Department of Health's response:
Management is also responsible for ensuring that private practice does not, to a significant extent, interfere with the performance of the function of the health service".
How right the hon. Gentleman was to remind us that there should be no interference with the performance of the health service, and that non-paying patients should not be disadvantaged. I hope that the Minister, too, will emphasise that; after all, taxpayers' money is being spent. The Select Committee is right to be concerned about efficiency and value for money.
Like every other debate that we have had about the health service, this one is ultimately concerned with finance. The Select Committee said that more finance was available for the waiting list initiative; in their response, the Government said that they did not feel that that was viable at this stage in the financial year, and gave various other reasons.
There is no doubt that health care is a bottomless pit, which, by definition, can never prove 100 per cent. satisfactory. As soon as a procedure is discovered, whereby a physical ailment or deficiency can be cured, a new waiting list is created. We appreciate that; but Conservative Back Benchers who retail the more repeatable details of their trips to Scandinavia, drawing telling contrasts between British and Swedish health care, should bear in mind the fact that Scandinavian countries —and most other developed countries that can be compared with Britain—spend a much larger proportion of their gross domestic product on health care. That is why it is right to continue to underscore the need for more cash for the waiting list initiative. Although we want value for money and quality, we cannot escape the argument about quantity.
In highlighting those and many other points, which I do not have time to touch on tonight, the Select Commitlee has performed to its credit and I commend its report.

Mr. David Amess: I congratulate the Select Committee on its excellent report and the Government on their positive response. The speech of the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) was, to put it crudely, a cop-out. It totally lacked any details about policy. Considering that the subject under discussion was money, it was a bit cheap of the hon. Lady not to respond to my request for some details.
All hon. Members understand the trauma that someone experiences when they are on a waiting list for an operation. I have been fortunate as I have never been admitted to hospital for an operation. Obviously, patients want the operation to be carried out as quickly as possible. However, it is totally irresponsible for any politician to pretend that there is an easy answer to enable a patient to have that operation quickly.
I am privileged to have in my constituency one of the finest hospitals in the country—Basildon hospital. I regret the way in which local Labour and Alliance politicians try to run down our excellent hospital. Basildon hospital is at the bottom of my garden. My family uses its services. My wife has had four babies there under the excellent national health service and, God willing, she will have a fifth in September. My family has used its excellent accident and emergency unit—

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Were all the babies accidents?

Mr. Amess: None of our children were accidents. We regard every one of them as a blessing. In two weeks' time, the Duke of Kent will open our brand new accident and emergency unit. My wife had an ear operation in our excellent hospital. My constituents are extremely proud of their hospital.
Hon. Members can imagine my anger when one of those ridiculous health monitoring committees was set up by the local Labour party. The chairman—or chair, as he likes to be called—used to be employed by our hospital, when he was in charge of the private patients' waiting list. When he was working at the hospital he considered it acceptable that the hospital admitted private patients but as soon as he left he immediately castigated private health care.
I hope that the hon. Member for Peckham will soon return to her place because she and I were on a Committee of this House two or three years ago when the Government first announced the waiting list option. Walworth road, bless its heart, undertook the initiative of spewing out literature highlighting waiting lists in various hon. Members' constituencies. One such list referred to my constituency.
In the 1987 general election campaign, when the Opposition guns were firing at me, the then Opposition spokesman—I think that it was the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson)—came to my constituency and found a child who had been waiting for rather a long time to have an operation. The national newspapers took up the child's plight and highlighted it during the campaign. As soon as the campaign was over and I was returned as hon. Member for Basildon, the Opposition ducked the issue and I was left to deal with it, which I did successfully.
I am delighted that there have been major reductions in the size of waiting lists during the past year in the hospital in my constituency. It has achieved the biggest overall reduction out of 15 districts in the Thames region. If we compare March 1991 figures with those for one year earlier, there were nearly 2,000 fewer people on the waiting list—a reduction of one quarter. That is why I did not respond to the point that I think that the hon. Member for Peckham had in mind when I tried to intervene. There are nearly 1,600 fewer people waiting longer than one year —a reduction of more than one half.

Mr. Gill: Does my hon. Friend accept that the statistics that he has just given are not isolated examples? In Shropshire, the county from where I come, the total waiting list for operations is down by 32 per cent. and the number of people waiting for more than one year has been reduced by 67 per cent.

Mr. Amess: Those figures are quite magnificent and I join my hon. Friend in saluting his local authority, and the men and women who work at his local hospital who have achieved such excellent results.
In Basildon, there has been a 37 per cent. reduction in the number waiting for general surgery, a 20 per cent. reduction in those waiting for ear, nose and throat treatment and a 10 per cent. reduction in those waiting for oral surgery and orthopaedic surgery.
In Basildon, we have already adopted many of the recommendations in the report of the Select Committee on Health. All waiting lists are now routinely checked to

ensure that those on them still need the operation. We have increased medical staff in problem sectors. A new consultant oral surgeon, whom the authority shares with Southend health authority, started in August 1990. New consultant posts were created in urology and plastic surgery in April 1991. The additional urology service set up in January 1991 resulted in more operations during the first three months.
Basildon has "short notice" waiting lists for filling last minute cancellations by patients. It gives appropriate notice of admission to ensure a minimum number of cancellations by patients. It has matched theatre capacity to bed availability. It has blitzed problem sectors of the list such as special sessions for day case urology. It has reduced "bed blocking" by returning patients to their home with proper support in order to free acute beds more quickly. It has introduced new clinical techniques and increased the use of day care surgery.
For 1991–92, Basildon and Thurrock health authority has obtained from the North East Thames regional health authority the following waiting list initiative funds: more than £500,000 to build and equip a dedicated day surgery unit at Orsett hospital; £12,000 to purchase arthroscopy equipment, used in the examination of joints; £28,000 for a hysteroscope to enable gynaecology surgical procedures to be carried out on an out-patient day-case basis; and £30,000 for equipment to enable key-hole surgery to remove gall bladders, substantially reducing average lengths of stay for such procedures and reducing the trauma.
In conclusion, I pay tribute to the former chairman of our health authority, Mrs. Joan Martin, the acting chairman, Mr. Gould, and the hospital manager, Ken Sharp. On 1 April 1992, the hospital will apply to become a national health service trust and the application is supported by local hospital doctors, nurses and managers, who believe that when it becomes a trust it will bring benefits to patients and staff, and a guarantee of job security to all those who work at the hospital. When I open the hospital fete on Saturday I shall thank all the women and men for their efforts in seizing the Government's initiative and reducing hospital waiting lists so dramatically in Basildon.

Mr. Gareth Wardell: I am pleased to have the opportunity to take part in the debate. In addition to debating the Select Committee's report on waiting lists we were also meant to look at the evidence taken by the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs. I am disappointed to have been called as late as this in the debate.
We have completed our evidence on elective surgery in Wales. Rather than taking a wide-brush approach I shall concentrate on an initiative unique to Wales which the Welsh Office, to its credit, has innovated—the three all-Wales regional specialist treatment centres: at Ysbyty Gwynedd in Bangor we looked at ophthalmology, at the Prince of Wales hospital at Rhydlafar in Cardiff we looked at hip and knee replacement surgery, and at Bridgend hospital we looked at hernia and varicose vein surgery. It is fascinating to see England lagging so far behind in this area.
It has given me great satisfaction to promote these centres in Gower, as I have visited all three and can vouch for the superb quality of service attained. Less than two


weeks ago I was privileged to witness the brilliant skills of Mr. Mehta, one of the three consultant ophthalmic surgeons at Ysbyty Gwynedd, carrying out cataract surgery followed by lens implant. It was obvious from my visits that the work of the treatment centres brings about dramatic improvements in the quality of people's lives.
The issue that deserves full attention is that of how to increase the number of patients treated so that human suffering, often for long periods, may be alleviated. It is significant that Mr. John Yates, giving evidence before the Welsh Select Committee, estimated that the more than 11,000 people waiting in Wales for more than a year for elective surgery could have their operations and treatment in only three weeks' work by the surgeons that specialise in their conditions. If the treatment centres are to be truly successful in dramatically reducing waiting lists, I believe that the Welsh Office must institute six changes.
First, the Welsh Office must commit itself to a future period for funding that is radically different from the present one, so that general practitioners and consultants know that post-operative, follow-up care will be available at centres on a long-term basis. The Minister and the Welsh Office must be more definite than they were in the parliamentary reply that the Minister gave me on 29 April. He must no longer be prepared to offer the type of parliamentary reply that he gave me on 3 May, which showed that the throughput targets for 1991–92 are yet to be agreed.
In passing I must also mention the need for the Welsh Office to have a care about the temptation now and again to rewrite history. Mr. John Wyn Owen, director of the NHS in Wales, informed the Public Accounts Committee in a letter of 3 April 1991—it is reprinted in appendix 1 of the Select Committee's report—that the orthopaedic treatment centre at Rhydlafar had a contracted throughput in 1990–91 of 172 hip replacements, 29 knee replacements and 44 other operations. But in a parliamentary reply to me on 3 May 1991, only a month later, the Under-Secretary of State for Wales gave the throughput for 1990–91 at the same hospital as 233 hip replacements, 57 knee replacements and 73 other procedures. Great care must be exercised when bandying about information like that.
Secondly, the Minister must insist that any patient who has waited for more than four months on a consultant's waiting list, as specified in the contract between the Welsh Office and the three treatment centres, is automatically informed by the local consultant that he can be referred to the treatment centre. That will get rid of the widespread practice among GPs and consultants of presenting the options to their patients as either a long wait or private treatment. The treatment centres exist, so this could be a constructive way forward.
Thirdly, Welsh Office funding must be made available to ensure that the waiting period after the patient has been referred to the treatment centre is short. Last week l[was told that one of my constituents from the village of Pontarddulais had been referred by his GP to Rhydlafar hospital for a knee joint operation. The hospital sent the referral back to the GP, saying that no more knee operations could be carried out on any patient in Wales for the remainder of the financial year 1991–92, no matter how severe the pain and suffering of the patient. Officials might find that amusing, but I do not. We are only three months into the financial year.
Expectations for early treatment should not be cruelly raised only for people to see their hopes dashed because the quota for knee surgery for the current year seems to be a miserly 50 for the whole of Wales. The quota for hip operations is only 160. According to the figures given to me on 3 May, that compares with 233 hip operations, 57 knee operations and 73 other procedures carried out last year. Obviously there is a decline. How can the Minister rest content when East Dyfed health authority has already taken up its quota of one knee and five hip operations? Is he content that Clwyd has already taken up its quota of two hip and two knee operations or with the 37 hip and five knee operations by West Glamorgan health authority, while the much less populated Pembrokeshire health authority area benefits disproportionately with 26 hip and 11 knee operations?
The answer for orthopaedics seems straightforward. When I visited the hospital at Rhydlafar I saw the obvious need to use the two main theatres exclusively for major joint surgery. To achieve that simple goal, the so-called plaster theatre could be a dedicated theatre for minor joint surgery performed on a day basis. It is also obvious that an empty ward is available to complement the additional theatre, enabling a substantial increase in major joint surgery. It is imperative that the present level of major joint work at Rhydlafar be substantially raised. I urge the Minister to raise it to as many as 1,200 operations a year and seriously to consider making the hospital a major centre.
Fourthly, a time bomb is ticking away in orthopaedics, and it is the time bomb of hip and knee replacement revisions, for which the Minister needs an action plan. Within 10 years of a major joint replacement, 10 per cent. of patients have to be revised with another 10 per cent a year after that requiring revision. Thus within 20 years of the initial major joint replacement surgery, all patients will need revision surgery. The Secretary of State for Wales must prepare for the setting up of joint revision centres in Wales together with specialist surgeons and the necessary infrastructure. As he knows, the Welsh Office contract with the Prince of Wales orthopaedic hospital does not permit revisions. That issue must be addressed.
Fifthly, if the treatment centres are to be truly Welsh regional centres they must not be permitted to discriminate in favour of the host authority. Allowing Ysbyty Gwynedd in Bangor to treat 306 patients for cataracts between 1 September 1990 and 31 March 1991, with only 23 residents outside Gwynedd being treated and only three of those residents from the county of West Glamorgan, was a major blot on the Welsh Office. That happened when 1,345 patients were waiting for non-urgent ophthalmic treatment at Singleton hospital, 476 of whom had been waiting for more than a year.
Sixthly, the Minister must move ahead quickly to establish the second specialist centre for cataract treatment at Bridgend general hospital. It would be useful to know the time scale for that.
I am delighted that the Welsh Office has set up treatment centres. I think that it is a major step forward in the reduction of waiting lists. England should learn from what the Welsh have done. In terms of the Select Committee's report, the fundamental issue is that the Minister for Health and the Under-Secretary of State for Wales must be extremely careful, if they decide quickly —perhaps too quickly—to adopt what the Audit Commission says about day surgery, not to fall into the


trap of failing to provide sufficient support services. My hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) has drawn attention to that danger.
The Government's response to recommendation No. 12 is the most disappointing of all. When the Minister for Health replies, it would be helpful if she could substitute, even at this late stage, something for the comment with which the Government end their response. In fact, it is a non-response to a vital problem. It reads:
We expect health authorities and family health service authorities to take account of any increases in day case work when planning primary and community health care services.
That is a blatant disregard of a massive job if day surgery is to be expanded. The members of the Select Committee went to the United States to see the expansion that has taken place there, and particularly to California. We know that without community back-up facilities the day-surgery initiative will never get off the ground in a big way. We must not put the cart before the horse. Instead, we must ensure that the necessary services are provided. That is why the next report of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, following the one on elective surgery, will be on community care.

The Minister for Health (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): It is a great pleasure to respond to the first report of the new Select Committee on Health. I share with my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) an understanding of the priority that needs to be given to tackling waiting lists in our national health service. There was a waiting list for those who wanted to speak in the debate and I am sorry that there has not been time for all hon. Members to participate.
I have the invidious task of responding in a short time to some of the comments that have been made before leaving time for my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield to respond. 1 say to the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales heard his speech and awaits the Select Committee's report. When he has had the opportunity to read it, he will respond.
There is no doubt that we have heard some excellent speeches this evening. My hon. Friends the Members for Harlow (Mr. Hayes), for Bury, North (Mr. Burt), for Basildon (Mr. Amess) and for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) once again set out their strong commitment to our NHS, to the developments, to the progress and to the challenges. How strongly that contrasts with the whinges of Opposition Members. I would loathe to be a member of the health authority that comes within the area represented by the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman), or to be in the health service in that area. She seems oblivious to the fact that a day surgery unit is being constructed at the hospital in her constituency at a cost of £9 million. The unit will be completed in the autumn. It is expected that work will start later this year on a new theatre block that will cost £14·8 million. There will be a new AIDS and HIV unit. There will be a great increase in the number of day cases that are treated.
The hon. Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) mentioned the important topic of plastic surgery, which poses some difficult questions in the handling of waiting lists. John Yates questioned our emphasis on the need to be rid of all

who find themselves on waiting lists for more than two years. But the hon. Member has forgotten to tell the House that there is an additional registrar and consultant in plastic surgery in her district health authority, a new waiting list scheme for day cases and further initiatives and developments.
Once again, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North pointed out, the hon. Member for Peckham ducked putting a figure on the amount by which she believes the NHS to be under-funded. I am surprised that she even failed to rally to the call of her hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), who said recently that he thought that an extra £6 billion was in the right ball park.
But we know, as my hon. Friends have pointed out so clearly and forcefully, that every Labour Government, despite their words, policies and commitments, have always left Government with waiting lists longer than they were when they took over. Conservative Governments have consistently reduced waiting lists. I think that all my hon. Friends will agree that the Labour party is essentially a walking waiting list disaster area.
Opposition Members have told us of disasters and of confusing facts and figures. My hon. Friends have pointed out clearly and forcefully the developments that they have seen in their health authority areas. The simple and central fact is that under this Government in-patient waiting lists have fallen by 6 per cent. and 40,000 fewer patients now await in-patient treatment than was the case in 1979.
Long waiting times are falling even more quickly. The latest figures obtained direct from the regions since the Select Committee's report was published show a 19 per cent. fall in long-wait patients—those waiting more than a year—in the year to this April. Those waiting more than two years fell even faster—by 38 per cent. over the same period. Long waiting times are tumbling and that fact should be welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
The reduction in waiting lists looks all the more impressive in the context of the steady increases in the number of patients being treated. There are 24 per cent. more in-patients than in 1979. That is a substantial figure. Five patients are treated now for every four that were treated then. There are nearly twice as many day cases and 8 per cent more out-patient attendances than in 1979. That is in addition to the phenomenal expansion that we have seen in the family doctor services which have grown faster than any other area of health spending over those years. Not only has the number of patients waiting been reduced, but as a proportion of those being treated it has fallen even faster than the figures show.
One important point that I want to address is the discussion to which my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield and other hon. Members referred about the waiting list information being published. We have revolutionised the information available about the health service. When the Labour party was in power there was a fog over the health service, as there was over education and any other area of the public sector. We have created an awareness and an understanding of the resource implications, outputs and waiting lists. But what is important is that under the new regime the waiting list information will, rightly and properly, be held by the purchasing health authority. It is the purchasing health authority that is the champion of its patients and it is the purchasing health authority that is accountable to the Secretary of State.
A misunderstanding may have arisen because the present information is based not on provider units but on provider districts. It is concerned with where the treatment is provided, not where people live. But what is clear, and it is important, is that the information will continue to be available to health authorities to enable them to establish contracts in which they drive waiting times down and seek those improvements.
In all the work of the health authorities we have seen greater pressure put on providers, all of whom will be required to make that information available so that even better quality improvements and waiting times can be achieved. In other words, the new way in which we will collect information will be a major step forward for patients and reduce waiting times still further.
Conservative Members have almost become weary of the debate about resources. Our investment in terms of financial input into the health service scarcely needs repeating. Let me say simply that we are spending £1,000 every second on the health service. In the time that it took my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield to make his speech, another £1·5 million was spent on the health service. A little less than that figure was spent during the speech of the hon. Member for Peckham—and, because of time constraints, my contribution will not produce expenditure anywhere near that figure.
My right hon. and hon. Friends know that it is not only the amount of money that is important but the way that it is spent. Time and again, Labour denigrate management skills, business expertise, and cost-effectiveness. However, we know—and Mersey demonstrated this—that the use of management techniques such as list validation, running a tight ship, and informing patients of their appointment times can ensure efficiency and effectiveness. That makes the health service much more rewarding for those who work in it.
We will soon provide all health authorities with guidance on best practice and principles in managing waiting lists. John Yates showed the way forward by advancing the debate and clarifying the many aspects that must be considered, such as the proper use of nurses, doctors, general practitioners and even booking systems, and the need for proper collaboration between family doctors and hospitals.
I welcomed the comments made by several hon. Members about consultants holding out-patient sessions in GPs' surgeries. Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Amos) introduced me to a GP who arranged such sessions in his own surgery. We have seen also GP fundholders driving forward standards, innovating, and devising ways of serving their patients, to provide better health care and a better health service.
We owe John Yates and IACC a great debt of gratitude. I visited Mr. Yates' centre at Birmingham, and he has regularly visited me to discuss his progress. I am pleased that he is now working with the West Midlands regional authority on its waiting lists.
In the early days, the waiting list initiative organised by the health service did not make the same progress that John Yates has achieved, but there can be no doubt that it has taken ownership of the issue of driving down waiting lists. The targets set by the chief executive, regions and districts are being vindicated by the remarkable results now being achieved—such as in Mersey. I hope that my

hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield will ensure that his illustrious constituent, Brian Redhead, is made aware of the great progress made by his district health service.
North East Thames region has presented a particularly intractable problem over the years, and right hon. and hon. Members will not need to be reminded of the contributions of my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow. However, that region has experienced a remarkable fall of 37 per cent. in the one-year waiting list, and of 58 per cent. in respect of those waiting for more than two years since March 1990. Trent, North Western, and many other regions have made similar excellent progress.
We will build on that progress. This year, a larger amount of money than ever before will be directed at the waiting list initiative, with the £35 million from the Department joined by another £25 million from the regions. I do not accept the suggestion that more resources for the waiting list initiative should be provided from the centre, because our argument is that priority is for the health service to deliver. Above all, it is for district health authorities to seek further improvements, because they are accountable for the time that their patients have to wait.
Our targets are ambitious, but we are confident, because of the success that we have already achieved, that there will be further progress.
A number of hon. Members asked about extra-contractual referrals. The key point about them is that in the past there was no financial benefit for a hospital from another area to receive a patient from outside its district. The money did not follow the patient. This year there has been an unprecedented level of consultation between the district health authorities and local general practitioners about where they wish to refer their patients and about historical patterns. At the same time, money has been kept back from extra-contractual referrals. Urgent cases have to be seen immediately. The debate should not overlook the central point that 50 per cent. of patients are admitted at once and of those who wait another 50 per cent. are treated within five weeks. The debate has concentrated on those whom we all agree have to wait longer than is right.
My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield made a number of other points. He knows that we have made considerable progress over developing job plans for consultants. It is important that their commitment to the NHS is properly understood and recognised. If we are to cut waiting lists, we must ensure that the health team works together as fast and as effectively as it can. My hon. Friend also made an important point about urban and rural areas. I hope that my remarks have already demonstrated to him that different ways of using resources and the NHS team to cut the time that people have to wait are part of our intention to provide better health care.
My hon. Friend mentioned regional centres. They are monitoring the work of the trusts. They are not an essential ingredient of the waiting list initiative. The waiting list initiative is a matter for the entire national health service, not for a particular part of it. We have created 100 fully-funded consultant posts to tackle waiting lists. We have maintained our investment in improved information systems to enable hospitals to manage better. We funded the waiting list helpline with the College of Health and 68 per cent. of GPs are now providing minor surgical procedures. Qa Business Services is now helping us to develop our waiting list work even further.
We fully agree with the Select Committee's view that long waiting lists for treatment are unacceptable. The


reduction of waiting times is a key priority for the reformed national health service. We want to put patients first. We can learn from the South Western regional health authority's new idea of a booking system. Reducing waiting times is a key objective of our reforms. Waiting times are tumbling. The reforms that we have introduced will help to drive them down still further.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her response to the debate. It is a pity that it was not longer, but that criticism is often levelled by Back Benchers when a number of important questions remain inadequately answered. I come back to a point that both 1 and other speakers raised forcefully. If the Government are serious about the success of the reforms that they are implementing in the national health service, not just health authorities but fund-holding practices and patients—the clients, the customers—must have the information that is essential if they are to exercise responsible choice and take informed decisions. I hope that my hon. Friend will ensure that when waiting lists and times are published they are published on both a provider basis and a purchaser basis.
return to the point that I made in my speech: if the citizens charter that the Government are so keen should succeed is to be meaningful, there must be a means by which the ordinary citizen—not just health authority officials as purchasers, but doctors acting on behalf of patients and the patients themselves—can exercise rights and have information upon which to exercise those rights.
This has been an interesting debate. It is sad that party politics—almost electioneering—reared its ugly head once or twice in the debate. One or two people who could have made valuable contributions to the debate were not called because of a lack of time. It has been a useful debate and shows just how important Back-Bench Members believe the health service to be. It also shows how important the waiting list is and how important it is to have accurate information not only about the numbers on the list, but about the time that people have to wait.

The debate was concluded, and the Question necessary to dispose of the proceedings was deferred, pursuant to paragraph (4) of Standing Order No. 52 (Consideration of estimates).

It being Ten o'clock, MR. SPEAKER, pursuant to paragraph (5) of Standing Order No. 52 (Consideration of estimates), put the deferred Questions on Estimates and Supplementary Estimates (Class IV, Vote 1 and Class XIII, Vote I) and the remaining estimates appointed for consideration this day.

Class IV, Vote 1

Resolved,
That a further sum, not exceeding £81,404,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges that will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1992 for expenditure by the Department of Trade and Industry on regional development grants, regional selective assistance, selective assistance to individual industries and firms, UK contributions arising from its commitments under the International Natural Rubber Agreements a strategic mineral stockpile, support for the film, aerospace and shipbuilding industries, assistance to redundant steel workers, and other payments.

Class XV, Vote 3

Resolved,
That a further sum, not exceeding £421,137,000, and including a Supplementary Sum of £161,194,000, be granted to Her Majesty our of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges that will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1992 for expenditure by the Scottish Office Industry Department on Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise; on regional enterprise grants; on technical and vocational education; on the promotion of tourism; on financial assistance to the electricity industry and local enterprise companies; on residual expenditure for the Scottish Development Agency and the Highlands and Islands Development Board; on roads and certain associated services, including the aquisition of land, lighting, road safety and related services; on assistance to local transport; on support for transport services in the highlands and islands; on piers and harbours, and on certain other transport services and grants; and on other sundry services in connection with trade and industry, etc.

Class XIII, Vote 1

Resolved,
That a further sum, not exceeding £9,962,627,000, and including a Supplementary Sum of £162,196,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges that will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1992 for expenditure by the Department of Health on hospital, community health, family health and family health service administration services, and on related services.

Class XVI, Vote 8

Resolved,
That a further sum, not exceeding £697,400,000, and including a Supplementary Sum of £ 10,291,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges that will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1992 for expenditure by the Welsh Office on hospital, community health, family health (part) and family health service administration services and on related services.

MR. SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Question which he was directed to put, pursuant to paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 53 (Questions on voting of estimates, &amp;c.).

Resolved,
That a further sum, not exceeding £78,863,754,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to complete or defray the charges for Defence and Civil Services for the year ending on 31st March 1992, as set out in House of Commons Papers Nos. 236, 237, 238 and 486.

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the foregoing resolutions and upon the three resolutions yesterday by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. David Mellor, Mr. Francis Maude, Mrs. Gillian Shephard and Mr. John Maples.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL

Mrs. Gillian Shephard accordingly presented a Bill to apply a sum out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the year ending on 31 March 1992, to appropriate the supplies granted in this Session of Parliament, and to repeal certain Consolidated Fund and Appropriation Acts: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 147].

Manchester (Olympic Bid)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Boswell.]

Sir Thomas Arnold: I am most grateful for the opportunity to address the House on the subject of inner-city investment, Manchester and the north-west. I have already explained to my hon. Friend the Minister that my purpose in raising the subject on the Adjournment is that I wanted specifically to deal with the Manchester bid for the Olympic games in the year 2000. As I explained in a letter to you, Mr. Speaker, I sought your confirmation that I would be in order to do so. The answer was forthcoming in the affirmative.
At this stage of Manchester's bid, the infrastructure is the vital issue. Great though my respect and affection are for my hon. Friend the Minister for Sport, he is not qualified, as I understand it, to deal with these matters. I therefore want to traverse the ground of partnership funding and the other urban funding for which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment is responsible, so that we can have a clearer understanding of where the Government stand at present in terms of the applications that are likely to come to them in due course.
It will not surprise you, Mr. Speaker, to know that there is a great deal of public interest, in Greater Manchester and elsewhere, about the nature of Manchester's bid. The previous bid was unsuccessful, but the committee regrouped, and a new proposal found favour with the British Olympic Committee.
I talked to the Gallup polling and opinion research company to see whether it would be sensible to test public attitudes towards the Olympics at this stage. I am most grateful to the chief executive officer, Mr. Gordon Heald, for his co-operation in carrying out, as a public service from Gallup, a preliminary survey of attitudes.
Gallup conducted its survey between 5 and 11 June and asked a series of questions on attitudes to the Olympics and the possibility of their being staged in Manchester. The sample size was 960. First, Gallup asked:
Do you know which cities or countries are competing to be hosts for the Olympic Games to be held in 2000?
Some 35 per cent. of respondents mentioned Manchester.
Clearly, there is good potential in terms of future awareness of what is being proposed. Ten per cent. cited the unsuccessful bid from London; 7 per cent. cited the USA; 6 per cent., Britain; 6 per cent., Barcelona; 5 per cent., England; 2 per cent., Athens; 1 per cent., Greece; and 1 per cent., Atlanta. I think that 35 per cent. is a respectable starting figure.
Gallup told all those interviewed that Manchester is competing to be the host in 2000 and then asked:
How likely would you be to visit Manchester to see any of the events?
Nearly 30 per cent. said that they would be "very" or "fairly" likely to go to Manchester to see some of the events. That underlines the need for early consideration and planning of the infrastructure measures that will be necessary if the bid is to have any hope of success.
Gallup asked respondents:
How important do you think it is to Britain that Manchester wins the right to be the host in 2000?
Forty-one per cent. of electors regarded this as "very" important and 36 per cent. as "fairly" important—a combined figure of 77 per cent. Some 51 per cent. of

respondents thought that staging the Olympics in Manchester would improve employment prospects for local people a great deal or a fair amount. That again must be of interest to my hon. Friend in evaluating any proposals that come to him for funding through his Department's schemes.
Finally, when Gallup asked:
How much of the finances to host the year 2000 Olympic Games do you think the Government should give?",
71 per cent. thought that the Government should give some financial help, 16 per cent. thought the Government should pay all the costs and 8 per cent. that it should not pay any.
I draw the attention of the House to the potential for further work on evaluating public attitudes that lies behind those figures. I do not believe that the bid can be successful unless it enjoys widespread public support and, indeed, a clear commitment from the Government that they would like the Olympic games to be staged here.
I recently asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he would specify the full range of grants currently available under his inner-city programme, with a brief technical description of each. I should he most grateful, therefore, if my hon. Friend the Minister will tell us something about the work that he is doing on City Challenge, the urban development corporations, the urban programme, city grant, derelict land grant, city action teams and any other schemes that he thinks may be relevant to the concerns which I know the Olympic bid committee has at present. I should also appreciate it if he said something about the European regional development grant, although not necessarily this evening, if he thinks that inappropriate.
I understand from the Olympic bid committee that three potential sites are under consideration. One of them straddles the boundaries of the city of Manchester and the boroughs of Salford and Trafford. Another, sometimes referred to loosely and colloquially as Eastlands, is on the east side of Manchester, which I believe is already attracting some City Challenge money. The site would be in the area of the Oldham road and Ashton road on the Gorton-Openshaw side of the city. There is another area, referred to loosely as Hough End, which at the moment consists of fields on the way into the city from Ringway airport.
I do not propose to trespass on the constituency of any other hon. Member, so I shall say no more about those sites, except to point out that there is likely to be a very lively debate about which of the three should be chosen and about whether any other sites should be considered for the staging of the Olympic games in the year 2000.
How are the programmes to which I have referred working in practice and what is the take up? That information will begin to give us some idea of the possibilities in terms of the proposals that the committee is likely to make. For example, will there be a mechanism for evaluating whether projects associated with the Olympic bid should qualify for partnership funding and Government help? If the programmes are cash-limited, as I believe they should be, how will the resource implications be discussed within Government?
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already said publicly that he welcomes the Manchester Olympic bid. I believe that in due course he intends to say something further about that bid. Clearly there are some important matters for the Government to deliberate upon.


I will want to know at an early stage whether my hon. Friend the Minister will hold regular meetings with the Olympic bid committee organisers.
Attention has also been focused on Liverpool. As I understand it, the bid committee has said that it wants to stage some of the events on Merseyside. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will consider it appropriate to say something about the application of his schemes with regard to Merseyside. However, my hon. Friend also has responsibility for the rest of the north-west. I would appreciate it if he would say something about the scope of his investment programmes elsewhere in the north-west and about whether some of the schemes could be relevant to Olympic events.
All hon. Members believe that the bid deserves a fair wind. No one is arguing that the Government should invest huge sums of public money. Those of us who support the initiative are seeking an early indication from the Government that they will be a willing partner with the members of the bid committee in trying to find solutions to important technical problems which must be overcome at this stage if Manchester's infrastructure is to satisfy the demanding criteria that the International Olympic Committee is bound to place on an application to stage the games. That is why I have raised the issue tonight. A number of complex issues need to be aired publicly at an early stage, and I look forward to hearing what my hon. Friend the Minister has to say.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Robert Key): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Sir T. Arnold) on his good fortune in obtaining the Adjournment debate and on raising a matter which is clearly of great importance to his constituents, to everyone in Manchester and the north-west and to the nation.
As my hon. Friend knows, I have been privileged to spend a good deal of my time over recent months in Manchester. It is a vibrant and multicultural city. One need only think of its range of academic and musical institutions—it now has the largest student campus in Europe—and the pop scene, its media centre and the fact that it is becoming the regional focal point for the arts just as Birmingham and Glasgow have become.
Since I have come to know Manchester so well, I have been constantly impressed by the energy and confidence of the people of the area and their sense of vision and purpose. I have seen many instances of strong practical partnerships not just between central and local government agencies, but between the private sector, voluntary organisations, churches, schools and the whole community in Manchester and Salford which have launched and sustained many exciting projects.
Only last week I spent a lively hour at Trinity high school, which is a voluntary aided school in Hulme. I was very impressed not only by the long list of academic achievements, but by the sheer energy and enthusiasm of the pupils and staff alike. That school has parent-community involvement as well as business and industry involvement in the shape of a compact. The youth of today

are the statesmen of tomorrow and this school is equipping its pupils with the skills which will make them independent, well-balanced adults.
Also last week I attended a meeting to discuss environmental improvements to the M602, a dreary entrance to both Salford and Manchester. There were people there from the local authority, central Government, the Tidy Britain Group, the Groundwork Trust, Manchester polytechnic students, with their imaginative scheme, and local employers. We were all working towards the same end: how to turn that bleak stretch of urban motorway into an attractive approach to the heart of Manchester.
Nowhere is this sense of common purpose better demonstrated than in the activities of the Manchester Olympic bid commmittee. Its bid to host the 1996 Olympic Games was widley praised for its vision and its integrity. Although that bid did not succeed in bringing the Olympic Games to Britain for the first time since 1948, it spread the message of Manchester's economic revival across the world and reminded many people of the rich sporting heritage to be found not only in Manchester, but in Great Britain as a whole. Manchester's latest bid, which was endorsed by the British Olympic Association on 24 April this year, opens up exciting prospects for the city, other local authorities in the conurbation, the north-west region and throughout Britain. I am sure that the bid committee will build upon the foundations of its previous bid, and I am pleased to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the Duke of Westminster and his bid team.
A successful bid, well executed, would be a great boost to the regional economy and urban regeneration in Manchester and the north-west. I have, for example, seen estimates that suggest that the event could add £0·5 billion to United Kingdom invisible exports. Moreover, there is a growing self-confidence that Manchester can take its rightful place as a major European city with all that that could bring in terms of international recognition and investment. The very process of mounting the bid is likely to improve further the international profile of the city.
The Government therefore wish Manchester every success with the bid. My hon. Friend the Minister for Sport has already met the chairman of the bid committee and the secretary of the BOA to discuss how best the Government can help to promote Manchester's bid. I have, of course, pledged my support to Bob Scott and the Manchester committee.
Partnership is a common theme of our whole approach to investment and regeneration, but we are demanding of our many partners in the regeneration process. We expect local commitment, participation, value for money and well-constructed ideas that are capable of implementation. I welcome the approach that has been adopted by the Olympic bid committee. Its strong emphasis on private sector participation, in line with Manchester city's historical entrepreneurial traditions, should produce the ideas, commitment and investment that will make the games a success. I understand that the Olympic bid committee is already engaged in the search for a suitable site for the main stadium and arena. In addition to sites at Barton Cross, the subject of last year's bid, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, there may be a possibility in east Manchester. A successful bid could make a worthwhile contribution to the regeneration of that area, which I know is now being closely examined by Manchester city council and the private sector, led by Terry Thomas.
I am pleased to report that my Department has recently agreed in principle to help with the cost of studies into the potential reclamation of part of the area. I welcome the city council's intention to consider east Manchester as a candidate for City Challenge next year. We shall examine closely any bids that we receive for support for Olympic facilities either in the context of City Challenge or separately.
However, my prime responsibility is for the regeneration of inner-city areas. My Department will play its part through the normal mechanisms and criteria that are designed to encourage greater economic activity in urban areas, especially on underused or derelict land. I encourage the bid committee to do what it can to ensure that there is sufficient developer interest to provide a suitable venue for major sporting events in the north-west. I look forward to hearing from the bid committee when its plans are more advanced.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, whom I am delighted to see on the Treasury Bench, has already taken a lively interest in the Olympic bid and, because we have discussed this together, I know that he is aware that the Central Manchester urban development corporation is also closely involved and playing its role.
Moreover, the Government have pledged themselves to a major programme of infrastructural and environmental works in the north-west within the time scale of the Olympic bid. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Patten), when he was Secretary of State, spoke of a further £3 billion improvement programme when he addressed the Olympic committee in Tokyo last year—where he had gone to express the Government's commitment to that bid. This is already under way, and the effects will become increasingly evident over the next few years. Our attention has not been confined to Manchester; we have worked through the Merseyside development corporation and increasingly in collaboration with the local authorities to regenerate Merseyside. That approach, building on the great warmth and energy of the people of Merseyside, has begun to unlock the enormous potential of one of our nation's major conurbations. Of course, resources are also being targeted to the shire districts of the region; for example, almost £20 million has been allocated this year for transport supplementary grant, and further resources are being spent through derelict land grant and estate action programmes.
I am proud to be a member of a Government who have invested heavily in the regeneration of the north-west, in its inner-city areas, in its infrastructure, and in its environment—and that means in its people. The Government have done so by carefully targeting public resources and by levering in the private sector. We have created the conditions necessary for initiatives to flourish. The Olympic bid team are among those who have benefited from that approach, not only because of the physical transformation of many areas, which will directly enhance the bid, but because it is a partnership that draws together all sectors of the community and the economy. The job has only just started, but the Government have a continuing programme of investment and initiatives to tackle it.
One of the first things that was evident to me when I became inner-city Minister for Manchester and Salford was how rundown areas could be transformed by

imagination, the strong commitment of local people, and careful targeting of resources. One only has to visit the north-west region's three development corporation areas, with combined annual budgets of more than £72 million, to see the progress taking shape. Before the year 2000, and the Olympic games, the corporations expect to lever in £1·6 million of private investment. More than 620 hectares of derelict land will have been reclaimed and major infrastructure works will have been undertaken.
Since 1988, more than £139 million has been spent in the north-west's inner-city areas, excluding Merseyside, through the urban programme. Of that, almost £25 million has been spent on directly enhancing the environment, and £58·3 million has been spent on renewing the local economic infrastructure. The urban programme has levered in at least an equivalent amount of private investment in those areas. More than £56 million of city grant has been awarded to private sector companies in the north-west, which are investing more than £301 million of private money in a wide range of urban regeneration projects. Those projects are providing new homes, new jobs, new hotels, refurbishing listed buildings and reclaiming derelict sites.
The Government have allocated the main share of derelict land resources, almost £26 million, to the north-west region this year. Emphasis is being given to schemes that enhance the local environment and 10 rolling programmes are operating in those areas where the problems are most severe. We have been vigorously tackling, on a wide front, the problems posed by rundown council estates. The Government's estate action programme demands a strategic approach to turning round deprived areas, and seeks to incorporate wider proposals to secure comprehensive regeneration. Physical improvements alone are not the answer—estate action assists in the development, in tandem, of proposals for dealing with social, economic and environmental problems. Since 1986, the Government have provided resources totalling £805 million for estate action, of which no less than a third has gone to the north-west.
The Mersey basin campaign, a 25-year, £4 billion, initiative, is using central, local authority and private sector funds to regenerate the watercourses of the River Mersey through river and canal improvements and waterfront-linked schemes. North-West Water plans to spend £4·3 billion to improve water and waste services throughout the region over the next decade. That compares with £1 billion in the 1970s and £2 billion in the 1980s. A major part of the spending programme will he on environmental improvements.
We have established an impressive record of Government inner-city and environmental investment, which is continuing to transform the region, not by throwing money at the problem—an approach which had singularly failed in the past—but through imagination, strong local commitment, and careful targeting of cash.
My hon. Friend will be aware of particular examples in which the Government's approach and policies have been brought together to achieve fundamental changes to formerly neglected areas. One of the best-known examples, Salford Quays, has benefited from £28 million of derelict land and urban programme grant. That has attracted private investment of £293 million—with more to come —and has transformed a derelict inner-city area, providing homes, offices, hotels and leisure facilities.
The Government are not content to rest on what they have achieved so far; new ideas are needed to continue the transformation of our inner-city areas. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recently announced the City Challenge, in which 15 councils around the country have been invited to bid for a share of £75 million next year —and the same amount each year for five years—to build on the success that has been achieved to date. Central to that partnership initiative are a strong vision for the future of the cities involved, participation by all sectors of society, a clear timetable and effective delivery mechanisms.
Within the Manchester conurbation, both Manchester and Salford city councils have been invited to compete. I am to receive their detailed bids tomorrow and, whether or not either authority is successful on this occasion, there will be a further opportunity to compete next year. I have seen both areas, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State knows them well. The work that has already been undertaken to mount the bid has begun to mobilise the wealth of untapped talent, expertise and local pride that I know exists in the region.
My hon. Friend mentioned the possibility of ERDF money. That may be a suitable way in which to support the

cost of the games, although Manchester will need to find the necessary capital cover from its existing allocations and secure the agreement of its partners in the Manchester, Salford and Trafford areas. To date, no such applications have been made. As I said, we shall pay careful attention to any that are made.
We are at the beginning of the process. I have tried to set out the ground, so that we are all clear about exactly where we are starting from. We shall continue to listen with considerable sympathy and—more important, I hope —with enthusiasm; we shall also maintain a practical commitment to the Manchester bid team. One of the team's challenges will be to recognise that at some point the Manchester bid may have to become the national bid, and we shall be interested to observe how the team deals with that.
Let me again congratulate my hon. Friend on raising this issue. I assure him that my ministerial colleagues and I will continue to support the bid committee's sterling efforts to bring the Olympic games to Britain—and to the north-west—in the year 2000.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes past Ten o'clock.